DOJ's $3M contract for administrative and training services awarded to Eagle Harbor, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,048,637 ($3.0M)

Contractor: Eagle Harbor, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2021-08-01

End Date: 2026-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS AND TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE

Place of Performance

Location: SPRINGFIELD, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22152

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $3.0 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC for work described as: ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS AND TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE Key points: 1. Contract provides administrative professionals and training quality assurance services. 2. Awarded to Eagle Harbor, LLC, a single entity. 3. Contract duration is 5 years, ending July 31, 2026. 4. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating predictable costs. 5. This is a Delivery Order under a larger contract vehicle. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330 (Engineering Services).

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of this delivery order is approximately $3 million. Without specific benchmarks for administrative and training quality assurance services within the DEA, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm-fixed-price contract type helps control costs, but the overall cost-effectiveness depends on the quality and efficiency of the services provided by Eagle Harbor, LLC. Further analysis would require comparison with similar contracts for comparable services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES'. This suggests that while the initial solicitation may have been broad, certain sources were excluded, leading to a limited competition. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated in the provided data, but the award type implies a restricted bidding pool. This could potentially impact price discovery and lead to higher costs compared to full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition may result in less competitive pricing for taxpayers, as the pool of potential offerors was restricted.

Public Impact

Benefits the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) by providing essential administrative and training quality assurance support. Ensures the smooth operation of administrative functions within the agency. Supports the quality and effectiveness of training programs for DEA personnel. The services are likely concentrated in Virginia, where the contractor is located.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition could lead to suboptimal pricing.
Exclusion of sources raises questions about the breadth of the initial competition.
The NAICS code for Engineering Services (541330) seems incongruous with administrative and training services, suggesting a potential misclassification or a very specialized niche.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty.
Long-term contract (5 years) allows for stable service provision.
Awarded to a single entity, potentially indicating specialized expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically within engineering services according to the NAICS code, though the description points to administrative and training functions. The federal government spends billions annually on such services. The specific niche of administrative support and quality assurance for training within a law enforcement agency like the DEA is specialized. Benchmarking would require identifying comparable contracts for similar support functions within federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, Eagle Harbor, LLC, is responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) contracting officer and program managers. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, oversight may also be influenced by the terms of the parent contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Justice Administrative Support Contracts
Drug Enforcement Administration Training Services
Federal Professional and Technical Services
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) for Support Services

Risk Flags

NAICS Code Mismatch
Limited Competition Concerns
Lack of Performance Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $3.0 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC. ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS AND TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EAGLE HARBOR, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Drug Enforcement Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-08-01. End: 2026-07-31.

What is the track record of Eagle Harbor, LLC in performing similar administrative and training quality assurance services for federal agencies?

Information regarding Eagle Harbor, LLC's specific track record for administrative and training quality assurance services is not detailed in the provided data. A thorough assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history, and client feedback for this company, particularly on contracts with similar scope and complexity. Federal procurement databases and past performance questionnaires can offer insights into their reliability, quality of service, and ability to meet deadlines and technical requirements. Without this specific data, it's challenging to gauge their expertise and past success in this particular service area.

How does the cost of this contract compare to similar administrative and training quality assurance contracts awarded by the DEA or other federal agencies?

Direct cost comparison is difficult without specific benchmarks for administrative and training quality assurance services within the federal government, especially for specialized law enforcement agencies like the DEA. The provided data lacks details on the specific tasks, labor categories, and quantities of services, which are crucial for a meaningful cost analysis. To assess value, one would need to compare the per-unit costs (e.g., hourly rates for specific roles, cost per training module reviewed) against market rates or similar government contracts. The firm-fixed-price nature helps control overall expenditure, but the underlying rates need to be competitive.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential service quality issues, contractor performance failures, and cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price structure doesn't adequately account for all eventualities. Given the NAICS code mismatch (Engineering Services vs. Administrative/Training), there's a risk that the contractor may not possess the most relevant expertise, or that the scope of work is not fully understood. Mitigation strategies would involve robust performance monitoring by the DEA, clear performance standards in the contract, regular progress reviews, and potentially contingency planning for service disruptions. The limited competition also presents a risk of less favorable pricing.

How effective is the current contract in meeting the DEA's needs for administrative professionals and training quality assurance?

The effectiveness of this contract in meeting the DEA's needs cannot be determined solely from the provided data. Effectiveness is measured by the quality of administrative support provided, the accuracy and utility of training quality assurance, and the overall contribution to the DEA's mission. Ongoing performance metrics, user feedback from DEA personnel, and achievement of specific program objectives related to training and administration would be necessary to evaluate effectiveness. The 5-year duration suggests an expectation of sustained effectiveness, but actual results require continuous monitoring.

What has been the historical spending pattern for administrative and training quality assurance services by the DEA or similar agencies?

Historical spending patterns for administrative and training quality assurance services by the DEA or similar agencies are not detailed in the provided data. To establish such a pattern, one would need to analyze multi-year spending data for these specific service categories across relevant agencies. This analysis would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and primary contractors. Understanding historical spending can help contextualize the current $3 million award, identify potential increases or decreases in demand, and inform future budget planning and procurement strategies.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) being assigned to a contract described as administrative and training quality assurance?

The assignment of NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) to a contract primarily described as providing administrative professionals and training quality assurance is unusual and warrants further investigation. Typically, administrative support services fall under codes like 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) or 541990 (All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services), while training services might be under 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training). The use of an engineering code could indicate that the administrative and training functions are highly specialized and integrated with engineering support, or it could be an error in classification. This discrepancy could affect how the contract is categorized in industry statistics and may raise questions about the precise nature of the services being procured.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering 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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 7

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: $3,161,598

Exercised Options: $3,161,598

Current Obligation: $3,048,637

Actual Outlays: $2,872,647

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QRAD20D8111

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline