Department of Transportation awards $1.4M contract for administrative and building support services to Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $1,434,344 ($1.4M)

Contractor: Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2023-09-14

End Date: 2026-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,173 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND SUPERVISION TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE & BUILDING SUPPORT SERVICES, MAIL DISTRIBUTION, SHIPPING AND RECEIVING, PAPER DELIVERY AND WAREHOUSING SERVICES FOR THE ASO REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLEGE PARK, AND MAIL SERVICES F

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30337

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $1.4 million to BOBBY DODD INSTITUTE, INC. for work described as: PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND SUPERVISION TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE & BUILDING SUPPORT SERVICES, MAIL DISTRIBUTION, SHIPPING AND RECEIVING, PAPER DELIVERY AND WAREHOUSING SERVICES FOR THE ASO REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLEGE PARK, AND MAIL SERVICES F Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential building operations including mail, shipping, and warehousing. 2. The award was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures, raising questions about potential cost savings. 3. The contract duration of nearly three years suggests a need for stable, long-term support. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the lack of competition may limit price discovery. 5. Geographic focus on Georgia indicates localized service delivery. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $1.43 million for administrative and building support services over approximately three years appears within a reasonable range for such services. However, without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or determine if it represents the best value for the government. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost certainty, but the lack of competition prevents a thorough assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures, indicating it was likely procured through a limited or sole-source approach. The specific details of the procurement method are not fully elaborated, but the absence of a broad competition suggests that the number of bidders was restricted. This limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through an open bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of robust competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing available, potentially leading to a less efficient use of federal funds.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from consistent administrative and building support services. Services include mail distribution, shipping and receiving, paper delivery, and warehousing. The contract supports operations at the ASO Regional Office, College Park, and mail services. The primary geographic impact is within Georgia, supporting local FAA facilities. The contract likely supports a workforce responsible for these essential building and administrative functions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated pricing.
Limited transparency in the procurement process.
Potential for reduced service quality if contractor faces no competitive pressure.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty.
Contract duration suggests a stable and reliable service provider.
Services are essential for the smooth operation of the FAA regional office.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader administrative and support services sector, which is a significant component of government contracting. The market for these services is competitive, with many firms offering janitorial, mailroom, and building management solutions. However, specific government contracts, especially those not widely competed, can operate with less direct market pressure. Benchmarking against similar government contracts for administrative support services would be necessary for a more precise valuation.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no explicit subcontracting requirements for small businesses were mandated. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, may have been limited. Further investigation into the procurement justification would clarify if small business participation was considered.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Federal Aviation Administration's contracting officers and program managers. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency regarding the procurement process and performance metrics would be beneficial for public oversight, but details are limited in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Operations Support Contracts
Administrative Services Contracts
Mail and Shipping Services Contracts
Government Warehousing Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Inflated Pricing
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $1.4 million to BOBBY DODD INSTITUTE, INC.. PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND SUPERVISION TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE & BUILDING SUPPORT SERVICES, MAIL DISTRIBUTION, SHIPPING AND RECEIVING, PAPER DELIVERY AND WAREHOUSING SERVICES FOR THE ASO REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLEGE PARK, AND MAIL SERVICES F

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOBBY DODD INSTITUTE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $1.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-14. End: 2026-11-30.

What is the track record of Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc. with federal contracts?

Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc. has a history of performing various services for federal agencies. While the provided data does not detail their specific performance history on this particular contract or others, a review of federal procurement databases would reveal their past performance ratings, contract values, and the types of services they have provided. Agencies typically evaluate contractor past performance as a key factor in award decisions, especially for non-competed or limited-competition procurements. Understanding their history with the Department of Transportation or similar agencies would provide insight into their reliability and capability to fulfill the requirements of this administrative and building support services contract.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar administrative support contracts awarded by the FAA or other agencies?

Benchmarking this $1.43 million contract against similar administrative and building support services contracts requires access to a broader dataset of federal procurements. Factors such as the scope of services (mail, shipping, warehousing), duration (nearly three years), geographic location (Georgia), and the specific agency (FAA) are crucial for comparison. Contracts with a similar scope and duration, especially those awarded through full and open competition, could serve as a benchmark. The absence of competition for this specific contract makes direct value comparison challenging, as competitive bids often drive prices down. A comprehensive analysis would involve identifying comparable contracts and adjusting for differences in service levels, contract type, and economic conditions.

What are the specific risks associated with a non-competed contract for essential building services?

The primary risk associated with a non-competed contract for essential building services is the potential for inflated costs due to a lack of price competition. Without multiple bidders vying for the contract, the selected contractor may not be incentivized to offer the lowest possible price. This can lead to a less efficient use of taxpayer funds. Additionally, a lack of competition can reduce transparency in the procurement process and potentially limit the government's access to innovative solutions or higher quality services that might be offered by other capable providers. There's also a risk that the government may not be aware of all potential vendors who could offer better value or specialized expertise.

How effective are fixed-price contracts in ensuring value for money in administrative support services?

Fixed-price contracts are generally effective in ensuring value for money for administrative support services when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. This contract type shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, providing the government with cost certainty. For services like mail distribution, shipping, and warehousing, where the tasks are relatively standard, a fixed-price approach can be efficient. However, the overall value for money is also heavily dependent on the initial pricing and the level of competition. If the fixed price was established without adequate competition, the value for money may be compromised, even with the cost certainty provided by the contract type.

What is the historical spending pattern for administrative and building support services by the Federal Aviation Administration?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for administrative and building support services would require a review of past contract awards. This would involve looking at the total amount spent annually on such services, the types of contracts awarded (competed vs. non-competed), the primary contractors, and the average contract values. Understanding these patterns can reveal trends in how the FAA procures these services, whether there's a reliance on specific vendors, and the typical cost ranges. This context is crucial for evaluating the current $1.43 million contract, especially considering its non-competed status, to determine if it aligns with or deviates from historical spending practices.

What are the implications of this contract being 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' for potential savings?

The notation 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) implies that this contract was likely awarded outside the standard competitive processes typically used for smaller procurements (generally under $250,000). This suggests the contract value exceeded the SAP threshold, and it was either procured through other competitive methods (like GSA Schedules or specific agency competitive processes) or potentially through a limited or sole-source justification. If it was not competed broadly, there is a missed opportunity for potential savings that could have been realized through a more open and robust bidding process. SAP is designed to streamline procurement and encourage competition for smaller dollar amounts, so bypassing it for a contract of this size ($1.43M) warrants scrutiny regarding the justification for limited competition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Office Administrative Services › Office Administrative Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: 697DCK-23-R-00397

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2120 MARIETTA BLVD NW, ATLANTA, GA, 30318

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,416,743

Exercised Options: $2,416,743

Current Obligation: $1,434,344

Actual Outlays: $803,903

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline