DOJ awards $2.87M for IT support, data processing, and web hosting to Eagle Harbor, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,873,820 ($2.9M)

Contractor: Eagle Harbor, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2024-02-01

End Date: 2026-01-31

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: DATA ENTRY, IMAGING, INDEXING, IT SUPPORT SERVICES AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $2.9 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC for work described as: DATA ENTRY, IMAGING, INDEXING, IT SUPPORT SERVICES AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Key points: 1. The contract value of $2.87 million over two years suggests a moderate investment in essential IT infrastructure. 2. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 4. The service category, Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services, is critical for agency operations. 5. The contract duration of 730 days aligns with typical IT service agreements. 6. The award to Eagle Harbor, LLC, requires scrutiny of their past performance and capacity to deliver.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $2.87 million over two years, averaging $1.43 million annually, appears reasonable for IT support, data processing, and web hosting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for these services within federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control. Without specific performance metrics or detailed service breakdowns, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the pricing seems within expected ranges for the scope.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests an effort to solicit a wide range of qualified vendors. This approach generally promotes price discovery and encourages competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, is beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure services at the most advantageous prices and terms, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will benefit from enhanced IT infrastructure and support services. Services include data processing, web hosting, and related IT support, crucial for the agency's operational efficiency. The geographic impact is primarily within the agency's operational areas, likely supporting national functions. The contract supports the IT workforce through the provision of essential services, potentially involving specialized technical skills.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's effectiveness and efficiency.
The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method warrants further investigation to ensure fairness and optimal competition.
Limited public information on Eagle Harbor, LLC's specific capabilities and past performance in similar large-scale contracts.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract duration of two years allows for stable service provision and planning.
The services procured are fundamental to modern federal agency operations, indicating strategic alignment.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Information Technology sector, specifically focusing on computing infrastructure, data processing, and web hosting. This is a critical and growing segment of the federal IT market, essential for agencies to manage vast amounts of data and provide online services. Spending in this area is consistently high across government, with agencies relying on external providers for specialized infrastructure and support to maintain operational agility and security. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within IT services categories, often measured by cost per user, data storage capacity, or service level agreement adherence.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from this particular award. The focus is on larger-scale IT service provision, likely requiring significant resources and capabilities typically held by larger, established firms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division, which awarded the contract. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, but detailed performance reporting and Inspector General oversight would depend on specific agency protocols and potential audits related to IT service delivery.

Related Government Programs

IT Infrastructure Services
Data Processing and Hosting Services
Cloud Computing Services
IT Support Contracts
Federal IT Modernization Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Contractor's past performance and capacity require verification.
Cybersecurity risks associated with IT infrastructure and data processing.
Clarity of scope and service level agreements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $2.9 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC. DATA ENTRY, IMAGING, INDEXING, IT SUPPORT SERVICES AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EAGLE HARBOR, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-02-01. End: 2026-01-31.

What is Eagle Harbor, LLC's track record with federal IT service contracts, particularly those involving data processing and web hosting?

Assessing Eagle Harbor, LLC's track record requires a review of their past federal contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Specific experience with contracts of similar size, scope, and duration for data processing, web hosting, and IT support is crucial. A lack of readily available public information on their performance in these areas would represent a significant risk factor. Federal agencies typically prioritize contractors with a proven history of successful delivery, adherence to schedules, and quality service provision. Further investigation into their financial stability and technical certifications would also be warranted to ensure they can meet the demands of this DOJ contract.

How does the $2.87 million contract value compare to similar IT support and data processing contracts awarded by the Department of Justice or other federal agencies?

The $2.87 million contract value over two years, averaging approximately $1.43 million annually, needs to be benchmarked against comparable federal IT service contracts. This comparison should consider the specific services rendered (data processing, web hosting, IT support), the agency size and complexity, and the contract duration. For instance, contracts for similar services within agencies like the FBI or other DOJ components, or even agencies with comparable IT needs such as the Department of Homeland Security, could serve as benchmarks. Factors like the number of users supported, data volume handled, and specific service level agreements (SLAs) are critical for an accurate comparison. If this contract's per-unit costs or overall value significantly deviates from established benchmarks without clear justification (e.g., unique technical requirements, higher security protocols), it could indicate potential issues with value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Key risks include potential underperformance by the contractor, cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the IT infrastructure and services provided, and the possibility of cost increases if the firm fixed-price contract has poorly defined scope or change order provisions. Another risk is vendor lock-in or reliance on a single provider for critical IT functions. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight by the agency, clearly defined performance metrics and SLAs, regular performance reviews, and strong cybersecurity requirements within the contract. The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' also presents a risk if the exclusion process was not fully justified or limited competition unduly. Ensuring Eagle Harbor, LLC has adequate bonding, insurance, and contingency plans is also vital.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring competitive pricing and optimal service delivery for this contract?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific needs or justifications for excluding certain vendors. Its effectiveness hinges on the validity and transparency of the reasons for exclusion. If the exclusions were well-founded (e.g., based on security clearances, specialized capabilities, or past performance issues with specific vendors), it could still lead to robust competition among the remaining qualified sources, potentially resulting in competitive pricing and high-quality service. However, if the exclusions were arbitrary or overly restrictive, it could limit the pool of bidders, potentially leading to less competitive pricing and fewer innovative solutions. The number of bids received and the final pricing compared to market rates would be key indicators of its effectiveness in this instance.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type on potential cost savings and contractor performance?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is generally advantageous for the government as it shifts most of the risk to the contractor. The contractor is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to manage their expenses efficiently and perform the work effectively to maximize profit. For taxpayers, FFP contracts offer cost certainty, minimizing the risk of cost overruns. However, if the contract scope is not precisely defined, contractors may be tempted to cut corners on quality or service to maintain profitability, or extensive change orders could negate the fixed-price benefit. Therefore, robust contract definition and oversight are still crucial even with an FFP structure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services › Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 15A00021R00000101

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2702 DENALI ST, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,873,820

Exercised Options: $2,873,820

Current Obligation: $2,873,820

Actual Outlays: $2,165,536

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15A00023DAQA00029

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline