DOT awards $27.3M for office furniture, exceeding benchmark by 19% for a 2-week delivery

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,269 ($27.3K)

Contractor: Steelcase Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2026-04-06

End Date: 2026-04-20

Contract Duration: 14 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IN ACCORDANCE WITH EO 14222 IMPLEMENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY COST EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE, I ATTEST THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE EO. THIS PURCHASE IS BEING MADE AFTER VERIFICATION OF FAA RECEIVING THE

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73169

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $27,269.33 to STEELCASE INC. for work described as: IN ACCORDANCE WITH EO 14222 IMPLEMENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY COST EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE, I ATTEST THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE EO. THIS PURCHASE IS BEING MADE AFTER VERIFICATION OF FAA RECEIVING THE Key points: 1. Value for money appears questionable given the significant price premium over benchmarks. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, which should theoretically drive better pricing. 3. Risk indicators are low, with a firm fixed-price contract and a short performance period. 4. Performance context is limited to a short delivery window for office furniture. 5. Sector positioning is within the broader 'Office Furniture' category, with limited specific market data available. 6. The contract's urgency may have contributed to the higher cost.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's price of $27.3 million for office furniture, with a benchmark comparison showing a 19% premium ($1948 million difference), raises concerns about value for money. While the contract is for a short duration (14 days), the substantial overage suggests potential inefficiencies or a lack of competitive pressure on pricing. Further analysis into the specific furniture items and quantities is needed to fully assess the justification for this premium.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. However, the fact that the price exceeded the benchmark by a significant margin suggests that either the benchmark is not fully representative of the market for this specific procurement, or that the competitive process did not result in the most cost-effective outcome for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, which limits a deeper analysis of competition intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: Despite a full and open competition, taxpayers are paying a premium for this office furniture. The higher-than-benchmark price means less funding is available for other essential government services or programs.

Public Impact

Federal employees within the FAA will benefit from new office furniture. The services delivered include the provision of office furniture. The geographic impact is likely concentrated where the FAA facilities receiving the furniture are located. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily related to the installation and setup of the furniture.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential overpayment due to price premium over benchmark.
Lack of detailed justification for the significant price difference.
Short delivery window may have inflated costs.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair process.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Short performance period minimizes long-term financial exposure.

Sector Analysis

The office furniture market is a mature industry with various manufacturers and distributors. Spending in this sector by the federal government can fluctuate based on agency needs for office space renovation, relocation, or equipment refresh. Benchmarking prices against industry standards and previous government contracts is crucial for ensuring cost-effectiveness, especially when dealing with large-dollar awards like this one.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans was not provided in the data. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is subject to standard federal procurement oversight. The firm fixed-price nature of the award provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver the specified goods within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency regarding the specific items purchased and the justification for the price premium would enhance oversight.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Procurement
Department of Transportation (DOT) Spending
Office Furniture Procurement
Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative

Risk Flags

Potential overpayment indicated by benchmark comparison.
Urgency of delivery may have inflated costs.
Lack of detailed itemization for price validation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $27,269.33 to STEELCASE INC.. IN ACCORDANCE WITH EO 14222 IMPLEMENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY COST EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE, I ATTEST THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE EO. THIS PURCHASE IS BEING MADE AFTER VERIFICATION OF FAA RECEIVING THE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STEELCASE INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27,269.33.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-06. End: 2026-04-20.

What specific types of office furniture were procured under this contract, and what are the detailed specifications?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing' under the PSC code 7110. However, specific details regarding the types of furniture (e.g., desks, chairs, filing cabinets), their materials, brands, and individual unit costs are not available in the summary data. This level of detail is crucial for a thorough value assessment and to understand how the $27.3 million total was reached. Without this granular information, it is challenging to definitively justify the 19% premium over the benchmark or to compare it accurately with similar procurements.

What is the basis for the $1948 million benchmark, and how was it derived?

The data states a benchmark difference of $1948 million, which appears to be a typographical error given the total contract value of $27.3 million. Assuming this refers to a percentage difference or a smaller dollar amount, the derivation of the benchmark is critical. Typically, benchmarks are established using historical contract data, market research, or industry price lists for comparable items. If the benchmark is based on a different set of furniture or a longer delivery timeframe, it might not be directly comparable. Clarification on the benchmark's origin and its precise comparison point is necessary to validate the reported price premium.

How did the 'full and open competition' process result in a price exceeding the benchmark?

A full and open competition is designed to foster price discovery and achieve the best value. If the awarded price exceeded the benchmark, several factors could be at play. The benchmark itself might be outdated or not precisely aligned with the specific requirements of this solicitation. Alternatively, the market conditions at the time of bidding, such as limited supplier availability for the specific items or expedited delivery requirements, could have driven up prices. The number of bids received and the range of pricing offered would provide further insight into whether the competition was robust enough to yield the lowest possible price.

What is the significance of the 'EXEMPT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE EO' clause related to cost efficiency?

The clause 'EXEMPT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE EO' likely refers to Executive Order 14222, which aims to promote cost efficiency within government operations. If this transaction is formally declared exempt, it suggests that specific criteria were met that justify its exclusion from standard cost-saving mandates, perhaps due to unique circumstances, urgency, or a pre-approved deviation. However, the attestation that it 'meets the intent' implies that even with an exemption, the procurement is still considered to align with the overarching goals of efficiency. This requires careful scrutiny to ensure that the exemption is valid and not merely a way to bypass cost controls.

What are the potential implications of the short 14-day delivery period on the contract's cost?

A very short delivery period, such as 14 days, often necessitates expedited shipping, premium manufacturing slots, or sourcing from readily available (and potentially more expensive) stock. Contractors may build in a premium to account for the logistical challenges and potential overtime required to meet such a tight deadline. While the FAA may have had a critical need for the furniture within this timeframe, it is important to assess whether the cost premium associated with this urgency is proportionate to the benefit gained from the rapid delivery.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: FURNITURE

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 901 44TH ST SE, GRAND RAPIDS, MI, 49508

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: $27,269

Exercised Options: $27,269

Current Obligation: $27,269

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QSMS24D0034

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline