Justice Department awards $97.7K for office furniture, highlighting potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $97,690 ($97.7K)

Contractor: Krueger International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2026-04-06

End Date: 2026-04-27

Contract Duration: 21 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SYSTEMS COMPONENTS LAC CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: GREEN BAY, BROWN County, WISCONSIN, 54302

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $97,689.73 to KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: SYSTEMS COMPONENTS LAC CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded for office furniture, a common but potentially high-cost commodity. 2. Limited duration of the delivery order suggests a specific, short-term need. 3. The contract was awarded via full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 4. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms. 5. The fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor for cost overruns. 6. The award value is relatively small, suggesting a minor procurement action.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $97.7K for office furniture is modest. Benchmarking against similar federal procurements for office furniture is challenging without specific item details, but this value appears within a reasonable range for a small to medium-sized order. However, the per-unit cost and overall value-for-money would depend heavily on the quality, quantity, and specific types of furniture procured. Without more granular data on the items, a definitive assessment of exceptional value is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The data does not specify the number of bidders, but this method generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to solicit the best value from a wide range of potential suppliers. The use of full and open competition suggests that the agency sought to maximize choice and potentially achieve competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing and the assurance that the government explored a broad market to meet its needs for office furniture.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice benefits from the acquisition of necessary office furniture. Federal employees within the Justice Department will utilize the procured furniture. The geographic impact is likely limited to the specific facility or office where the furniture is deployed. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily related to the installation and use of the furniture.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detail on specific furniture items makes it difficult to assess true value for money.
The short duration of the delivery order could indicate a rushed procurement or a need that may not be fully representative of ongoing requirements.
Absence of small business participation could be a missed opportunity to support smaller enterprises.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market search.
Firm fixed-price contract type protects the government from cost increases.
The procurement process appears to have followed standard federal acquisition procedures.

Sector Analysis

The office furniture market is a mature sector within the broader manufacturing and retail industries. Federal spending on office furniture is consistent, supporting various manufacturers and distributors. This contract falls under the 'Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing' (NAICS 337211) category. While specific benchmarks for this exact procurement are not readily available, the federal government is a significant buyer in this space, often leveraging large-scale contracts and GSA schedules.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it indicate any specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The data suggests that the primary awardee, Krueger International, Inc., is likely a larger entity. This procurement may not directly benefit the small business ecosystem unless Krueger International engages in subcontracting with smaller firms, which is not specified here.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is subject to standard federal procurement oversight. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle (implied by 'delivery order'), oversight would typically involve the issuing agency's contracting officer and potentially the agency's Inspector General if specific concerns arise. Transparency is maintained through contract databases like FPDS. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability on the contractor's part to deliver within the agreed-upon cost.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
Office Furniture Procurement
Department of Justice - Facilities Management
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing (NAICS 337211)

Risk Flags

Potential for overpricing without detailed itemization
Limited duration may not reflect full furniture needs
Lack of small business participation noted

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $97,689.73 to KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC.. SYSTEMS COMPONENTS LAC CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Federal Prison Industries / Unicor).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $97,689.73.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-06. End: 2026-04-27.

What is the track record of Krueger International, Inc. with federal contracts?

Krueger International, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts. While this specific award is for a relatively small amount ($97.7K), a comprehensive analysis would involve examining their broader contract portfolio. This includes reviewing past performance on similar furniture procurements, contract values, agencies served, and any reported issues such as contract disputes, overcharges, or performance failures. Accessing detailed contract history databases would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and experience as a federal contractor. Without this broader context, assessing their track record solely on this single award is limited.

How does the value of this contract compare to typical federal office furniture procurements?

The value of this contract, approximately $97.7K, is on the lower end for significant federal office furniture procurements. Larger agencies often award multi-million dollar contracts for comprehensive office outfitting or furniture refresh programs. However, for specific needs, such as furnishing a particular office suite, replacing a limited number of items, or fulfilling an urgent requirement, this value is not unusual. The key determinant of value is the quantity and quality of furniture received relative to the price. This award suggests a targeted procurement rather than a large-scale furniture acquisition.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific contract?

The primary risks associated with this contract are related to value and performance. Given the limited information on the specific items being procured, there's a risk that the government may not be receiving optimal value for the funds expended if the per-unit costs are inflated or the quality does not meet expectations. Another risk is contractor performance; while the contract is firm fixed-price, delays in delivery or provision of substandard furniture could still disrupt operations. The short duration (21 days) also presents a risk of rushed delivery or installation issues if not managed carefully by the agency.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring competitive pricing for office furniture?

Full and open competition is generally effective in ensuring competitive pricing for office furniture by allowing a wide array of vendors to bid. This broadens the supplier base, increases the likelihood of receiving multiple competitive offers, and drives down prices. However, the effectiveness can be influenced by factors such as the specificity of the government's requirements (too vague or too restrictive requirements can limit competition), the market conditions for furniture at the time of solicitation, and the administrative burden of managing a large number of bids. For commodity items like standard office furniture, full and open competition is typically a strong mechanism for price discovery.

What is the historical spending pattern for office furniture by the Department of Justice?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) historically spends significant amounts on office furniture, reflecting its large workforce and numerous facilities across the country. Annual spending can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on major renovation projects, new facility constructions, or agency-wide furniture replacement cycles. This spending is distributed across various contract vehicles, including GSA schedules, direct procurements, and task orders under larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Analyzing DOJ's historical spending data would reveal trends in furniture types, preferred vendors, and average costs per item, providing context for individual awards like this one.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type for this furniture procurement?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally advantageous for the government in procurements where the scope of work is well-defined, such as the purchase of specific office furniture items. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This means Krueger International, Inc. is obligated to deliver the specified furniture for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This protects the Department of Justice from unexpected price increases and provides budget certainty. The primary implication is that the contractor must carefully estimate their costs to ensure profitability, which can incentivize efficiency.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing › Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: FURNITURE

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: FN1507-21

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1330 BELLEVUE ST, GREEN BAY, WI, 54302

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $97,690

Exercised Options: $97,690

Current Obligation: $97,690

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15UC0C21D00001101

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline