General Services Administration awards $4.7M for 10 SUVs, exceeding benchmark by 15.9% for a 300-month duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,765 ($47.8K)

Contractor: Fleet Vehicle Source Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-08

End Date: 2027-02-02

Contract Duration: 300 days

Daily Burn Rate: $159/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 4X4 SUV, INTERMEDIATE, 4 DR, 5 PASS, MIN 5500 GVWR

Place of Performance

Location: LAS VEGAS, CLARK County, NEVADA, 89118

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $47,765 to FLEET VEHICLE SOURCE INC for work described as: 4X4 SUV, INTERMEDIATE, 4 DR, 5 PASS, MIN 5500 GVWR Key points: 1. The contract's duration of 300 months (25 years) is exceptionally long for vehicle procurement, raising questions about long-term value and potential obsolescence. 2. A 15.9% cost overrun against the benchmark suggests potential overpayment or a lack of aggressive negotiation. 3. The procurement utilized full and open competition, indicating a broad market was accessible. 4. The fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty but may limit flexibility if needs change over the extended period. 5. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements means limited direct benefit to small businesses from this specific award. 6. The contract is for intermediate 4x4 SUVs, a specific vehicle type that may have limited alternatives in the market.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The awarded price of $477,650 per vehicle, based on 10 units, appears high when compared to typical government fleet vehicle purchases. The benchmark of $407,895 suggests a significant deviation. The extended 300-month duration also complicates a straightforward value assessment, as it locks in pricing for a very long period, potentially missing out on future technological advancements or more competitive pricing cycles. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty but could be disadvantageous if market prices decrease significantly over the contract's life.

Cost Per Unit: The benchmark price of $407,895 per vehicle indicates that the awarded price of $477,650 is approximately 15.9% higher than expected for this type of vehicle under similar conditions.

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select from a wide range of qualified sources. The competitive process should theoretically lead to a fair market price, although the final award price exceeded the benchmark.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the transparency of a competitive process, which aims to prevent sole-source awards and ensure a reasonable price. However, the fact that the award price exceeded the benchmark suggests that either the benchmark was too low, or the competition did not result in the most cost-effective outcome possible.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring intermediate 4x4 SUVs for operational needs will benefit from this contract. The vehicles will support various government functions, likely including transportation for personnel and equipment. The contract specifies delivery to Nevada (SN: NEVADA), indicating a geographic focus for the vehicle deployment. The procurement supports the automotive manufacturing sector (NA: 336111) through the purchase of new vehicles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 300-month contract duration is unusually long for vehicle procurement and may lead to vehicles becoming outdated or requiring excessive maintenance.
The awarded price significantly exceeds the provided benchmark, indicating potential overspending or a flawed benchmark.
Lack of small business participation requirements means limited economic benefit for small businesses.
Firm fixed-price contracts can be disadvantageous if market conditions change favorably for buyers over a long period.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition was utilized, allowing for broad market participation and theoretically competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government over the contract term.
The specific vehicle type (4x4 intermediate SUV) meets a defined operational requirement for the agency.

Sector Analysis

The automotive manufacturing sector (NAICS 336111) encompasses the production of vehicles. This contract represents a direct purchase of finished goods within this sector. Government fleet vehicle procurement is a significant market segment, often characterized by large volume orders and specific performance requirements. Benchmarking against similar contracts is crucial for ensuring value, as prices can vary based on vehicle specifications, volume, and contract duration. The GSA's role as a procurement agent for federal agencies highlights the government's substantial presence in the automotive market.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to include any specific small business set-aside provisions, nor are there explicit requirements for subcontracting with small businesses mentioned in the provided data. Consequently, this particular award is unlikely to directly stimulate small business participation or provide subcontracting opportunities within the small business ecosystem. The focus is on the prime contractor, Fleet Vehicle Source Inc., and the direct supply of vehicles.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically oversees federal fleet vehicle procurement, establishing policies and managing contracts to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) within GSA is responsible for managing many of these vehicle contracts. Oversight mechanisms would likely include performance monitoring, delivery tracking, and financial audits. Transparency is generally maintained through public contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General oversight would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

GSA Fleet Vehicle Procurement
Federal Automotive Supply Chain
Government Vehicle Leasing Programs
Department of Defense Vehicle Purchases
Law Enforcement Vehicle Acquisition

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration
Price exceeds benchmark
Potential for vehicle obsolescence
Long-term maintenance cost uncertainty

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $47,765 to FLEET VEHICLE SOURCE INC. 4X4 SUV, INTERMEDIATE, 4 DR, 5 PASS, MIN 5500 GVWR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FLEET VEHICLE SOURCE INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $47,765.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-08. End: 2027-02-02.

What is the track record of Fleet Vehicle Source Inc. in fulfilling government contracts, particularly for vehicles?

Information regarding Fleet Vehicle Source Inc.'s specific track record with government contracts, especially for vehicles, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance ratings, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and the volume and types of contracts they have previously been awarded by federal agencies. Analyzing their performance on similar vehicle procurements, including adherence to delivery schedules and quality standards, would be essential to gauge their reliability and capability as a contractor for this $4.7 million award.

How does the $477,650 per-vehicle cost compare to other intermediate 4x4 SUVs purchased by the government in the last two years?

The awarded price of $477,650 per vehicle significantly exceeds the provided benchmark of $407,895, representing a 15.9% increase. To provide a comprehensive comparison, data from similar government procurements of intermediate 4x4 SUVs over the past two years would be needed. This would involve analyzing contracts from agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, or other entities that frequently purchase such vehicles. Factors such as specific trim levels, optional equipment, delivery locations, and contract volumes influence pricing. Without this broader dataset, it's difficult to definitively state if this price is an outlier or representative of a rising market trend for this specific vehicle type.

What are the primary risks associated with the 300-month contract duration for vehicle procurement?

The primary risks associated with a 300-month (25-year) contract duration for vehicle procurement are numerous. Firstly, technological obsolescence is a major concern; vehicles purchased today may be significantly outdated in terms of fuel efficiency, safety features, and performance by the end of the contract term. Secondly, maintenance and repair costs could escalate dramatically over such a long period, potentially negating any initial cost savings. Thirdly, the government locks in current pricing for an extended duration, missing opportunities to benefit from potential future market price reductions or more advanced, cost-effective models. Finally, the long duration increases the risk of the vehicles no longer meeting the agency's evolving operational needs or regulatory requirements.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring value for money for this specific vehicle procurement?

Full and open competition is generally considered an effective strategy for ensuring value for money as it allows a wide range of potential suppliers to bid, fostering price reduction through market forces. In this case, the GSA utilized this approach, which should theoretically lead to competitive pricing. However, the fact that the awarded price exceeded the benchmark by 15.9% raises questions about the effectiveness in this specific instance. It could indicate that the benchmark was not accurately set, the competition, while open, did not yield the lowest possible price due to specific vehicle requirements or limited qualified bidders, or that other factors influenced the final award price beyond just the base vehicle cost.

What are the implications of the 'firm fixed price' contract type given the 300-month duration?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type provides the government with cost certainty, as the price is set and generally not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. Given the exceptionally long 300-month duration of this contract, the FFP structure carries significant implications. While it protects the government from potential cost overruns by the contractor, it also means the government is locked into paying the agreed-upon price for 25 years. If market prices for similar vehicles decrease significantly over this period, or if technological advancements lead to more cost-effective alternatives, the government will not benefit from these changes. Conversely, if the contractor underestimated costs, they bear the risk, which could potentially lead to performance issues if financial viability is threatened.

What is the significance of the contract being for 'Delivery Order' (AW: DELIVERY ORDER) rather than an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract?

The designation 'Delivery Order' (AW: DELIVERY ORDER) typically implies that this contract represents a specific order placed against a larger, pre-existing contract vehicle, often an IDIQ or a similar master agreement. This means that the terms, conditions, and pricing structure were likely established previously through a broader competitive process. The current award signifies the government's decision to purchase a specific quantity (10 vehicles) of a defined item (4X4 SUV) under those established terms. It suggests that the initial competition for the overarching contract vehicle was completed, and this is a subsequent action to fulfill a specific requirement, rather than the establishment of a new, standalone contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Motor Vehicle Manufacturing › Automobile Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MOTOR VEHICLES, CYCLES, TRAILERS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 47QMCA21R0008

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6718 W SUNSET RD, LAS VEGAS, NV, 89118

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $47,765

Exercised Options: $47,765

Current Obligation: $47,765

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QMCA22D000U

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline