GSA awards $12.8K for 4-seat sofas, raising questions about value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,800 ($12.8K)

Contractor: LC Industries Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-01

End Date: 2026-04-08

Contract Duration: 7 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT

Sector: Other

Official Description: 4 SEAT SOFA SHIPBOARD USE

Place of Performance

Location: DURHAM, DURHAM County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27703

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $12,800 to LC INDUSTRIES INC for work described as: 4 SEAT SOFA SHIPBOARD USE Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high for a short-term rental of furniture. 2. Limited competition raises concerns about price discovery and potential overpayment. 3. The fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment introduces potential cost escalation risks. 4. The short duration of the contract suggests a specific, immediate need. 5. The use of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call indicates an existing framework agreement. 6. The specific need for 'shipboard use' may justify specialized requirements and potentially higher costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The awarded amount of $12,800 for a 7-day rental of four 4-seat sofas for shipboard use seems disproportionately high. Without specific details on the sofa's features, durability, or any associated services (delivery, setup, removal), it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, typical furniture rental costs for such a short period are generally much lower, suggesting potential overvaluation or unique, undisclosed requirements.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) and was awarded as a BPA Call. The data indicates it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP,' which, combined with the 'sole-source' classification, suggests that this specific requirement was not broadly solicited. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially leading to a less favorable price for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of a competitive bidding process means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for these sofas, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the crew or personnel who will use the sofas aboard a vessel. The service delivered is the provision of temporary furniture for a specific operational need. The geographic impact is localized to the vessel and its operational area, likely within North Carolina. There are no significant workforce implications directly tied to this specific contract award.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

High cost for a short-term rental.
Lack of competitive bidding limits price discovery.
Potential for cost escalation due to economic price adjustment.
Unclear justification for sole-source award.

Positive Signals

Addresses a specific, potentially urgent need for shipboard accommodations.
Utilizes an existing BPA framework, potentially streamlining the acquisition process.
Contract is for a short duration, limiting long-term financial exposure.

Sector Analysis

The furniture and fixtures sector encompasses a wide range of products, from basic office supplies to specialized furnishings. This contract falls into a niche within this sector, focusing on temporary, specialized furniture for government use, specifically aboard a vessel. The market for government furniture procurement is substantial, but contracts for short-term, specialized rentals are less common and often subject to specific agency needs and regulations. Benchmarking is difficult without more context on the specific type of vessel and its requirements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract involved small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities. As it was not competed under SAP and appears to be a sole-source award, the likelihood of specific small business participation is low unless LC INDUSTRIES INC itself is a small business or has a subcontracting plan in place that was not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. As a BPA Call, it operates under the terms of the parent BPA. Accountability would be managed through contract performance monitoring and adherence to the terms of the agreement. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of detailed justification in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration Furniture Procurement
Shipboard Equipment Contracts
Temporary Furniture Rentals
Defense Logistics Agency Contracts

Risk Flags

High Cost per Unit/Rental Period
Lack of Competition
Sole-Source Justification Unclear
Potential for Price Escalation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $12,800 to LC INDUSTRIES INC. 4 SEAT SOFA SHIPBOARD USE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LC INDUSTRIES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12,800.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-01. End: 2026-04-08.

What specific features or requirements justify the $12,800 cost for a 7-day rental of four 4-seat sofas for shipboard use?

The provided data lacks the specific details necessary to justify the $12,800 cost for a 7-day rental of four 4-seat sofas for shipboard use. Typically, such high costs for short-term furniture rental would be associated with highly specialized, durable, or custom-designed furniture, or significant logistical challenges such as delivery and installation in a secure or difficult-to-access location like a ship. Without information on the material, design, certifications (e.g., fire retardancy, marine-grade), or the specific logistical demands of placing and removing the furniture from the vessel, it is impossible to ascertain the value proposition. The 'shipboard use' designation suggests potential compliance with maritime regulations or specific environmental conditions that could increase costs, but these are not detailed.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis because it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and classified as 'sole-source.' This typically occurs when there is only one responsible source capable of providing the required goods or services, or when a compelling urgency prevents competition, or when the acquisition is for a follow-on effort to a prior contract where only one source was found acceptable. In this case, the specific nature of 'shipboard use' might imply unique requirements that only LC INDUSTRIES INC could meet, or perhaps the acquisition was made under an existing Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) where the call was directed to a specific vendor. However, without further justification, the lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and missed opportunities for better value.

What is the typical market rate for renting similar furniture for such a short duration?

Determining the precise market rate for renting four 4-seat sofas for a 7-day period, especially for 'shipboard use,' is challenging without more specific product details and location context. However, general furniture rental rates for standard office or event furniture typically range from $50-$200 per piece per week, depending on the quality and style. For a 7-day rental of four sofas, this would suggest a cost in the range of $200-$800, plus potential delivery and setup fees. The awarded price of $12,800 ($3,200 per sofa for the week) is significantly higher than these general benchmarks, indicating either highly specialized requirements, substantial hidden costs, or a lack of competitive pricing pressure.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT' contract type for this acquisition?

The 'FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT' (FPEPA) contract type introduces risk of cost escalation for the government. While the base price is fixed, the economic price adjustment clause allows for modifications to the contract price based on fluctuations in specified economic factors, such as inflation, material costs, or labor rates. For a short-term rental, the potential for significant price changes within the 7-day period is generally low, but the inclusion of this clause, especially in a sole-source contract, can be a red flag. It suggests that the contractor anticipates cost volatility or is using the clause to protect against unforeseen market shifts, potentially passing those risks onto the government without the benefit of competitive bidding to mitigate them.

How does the use of a BPA Call impact the oversight and accountability of this contract?

Using a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call means this specific order is placed under a pre-existing BPA, which itself has established terms and conditions. Oversight and accountability are managed through the terms of the parent BPA and the specific call document. The BPA likely underwent some level of competition or justification when initially established. However, the individual call being 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and potentially sole-source means that the specific justification for choosing this vendor for this particular call is crucial. Accountability rests with the contracting officer to ensure the call meets the BPA's scope and that the pricing is fair and reasonable, even without open competition for the call itself. Transparency for the individual call is reduced compared to a fully competed contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Retail Trade › Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores › Office Supplies and Stationery Stores

Product/Service Code: OFFICE SUPPLIES AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT (K)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4500 EMPEROR BLVD, DURHAM, NC, 27703

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,800

Exercised Options: $12,800

Current Obligation: $12,800

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00F16120

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline