HHS awards $33M for Oracle software and hardware, with a significant portion for Exadata platforms

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,993,600 ($33.0M)

Contractor: Affigent, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2021-05-27

End Date: 2024-05-20

Contract Duration: 1,089 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: ORACLE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE SUPPORT, HARDWARE MAINTENANCE, AND EXADATA PLATFORMS

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20171

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $33.0 million to AFFIGENT, LLC for work described as: ORACLE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE SUPPORT, HARDWARE MAINTENANCE, AND EXADATA PLATFORMS Key points: 1. The contract value of $33 million appears reasonable for comprehensive Oracle software, hardware, and support services, especially considering the inclusion of Exadata platforms. 2. Competition was conducted under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause, suggesting a potentially limited but justified bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 1089 days (approximately 3 years) provides a stable period for service delivery. 4. The fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 5. This award falls under 'Other Computer Related Services,' a broad category that requires further scrutiny for specific service alignment. 6. The prime contractor, Affigent, LLC, is a relatively small entity, raising questions about their capacity to deliver complex Oracle solutions independently.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $33 million award is challenging without specific details on the Oracle software versions, hardware configurations, and support levels. However, the inclusion of Exadata platforms, which are high-performance database machines, typically commands a premium. Comparing this to similar large-scale Oracle support contracts across federal agencies would be necessary for a more precise value assessment. The fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the specific deliverables and performance metrics.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This specific procurement method indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, potentially due to specific requirements or prior relationships. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'exclusion of sources' clause suggests it may not have been a fully open solicitation to all potential vendors in the market. This could limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs compared to a truly open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price achievable through a wider bidding pool. However, if the exclusion of sources was justified by specific technical needs or security requirements, it could represent a necessary trade-off for acquiring specialized capabilities.

Public Impact

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) benefits from this contract by ensuring continued access to critical Oracle software, hardware, and support, essential for its data management and operational functions. Services delivered include software licensing, maintenance, hardware support (likely for Exadata systems), and potentially professional services related to Oracle products. The geographic impact is primarily within the FDA's operational centers, likely concentrated in Virginia where the contractor is located and where federal IT infrastructure is often managed. Workforce implications are minimal for the public directly, but the contract supports the IT personnel within the FDA who rely on these Oracle systems for their daily tasks.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of innovation.
Reliance on a single prime contractor for extensive Oracle services could pose a risk if the contractor underperforms or faces financial instability.
The broad 'Other Computer Related Services' NAICS code might obscure the specific nature and criticality of the services being procured.
Lack of detail on specific Exadata models and configurations makes it difficult to assess if the hardware procured is the most cost-effective solution.

Positive Signals

The fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract duration offers stability for essential IT services, preventing disruptions.
The award to Affigent, LLC, may represent an effort to diversify contracting with smaller or specialized IT firms.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause, if properly justified, could indicate a strategic decision to procure specialized capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Information Technology sector, specifically focusing on software licensing, maintenance, and hardware support for Oracle products. The market for enterprise database solutions and associated support is dominated by a few major vendors, including Oracle itself. Federal spending on IT, particularly for database management systems and high-performance computing like Exadata, is substantial. This contract represents a portion of that spending, aimed at maintaining critical infrastructure for a key health regulatory agency.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded to Affigent, LLC, which may be considered a small business depending on its size standards for the 'Other Computer Related Services' NAICS code (541519). However, the data indicates the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' and the small business set-aside flag ('sb') is false. This suggests it was not specifically set aside for small businesses. If Affigent is a small business, this award could be significant for them, but there's no explicit indication of subcontracting goals for other small businesses within the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the specific program offices within the FDA utilizing the Oracle systems. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's performance work statement (PWS), including service level agreements (SLAs) for support and maintenance. Transparency is facilitated by federal contract databases like FPDS, where this award is recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Oracle Database Software Licensing and Maintenance
IT Hardware Maintenance Services
Exadata Platform Support
Cloud Infrastructure Services (if applicable)
Data Management Solutions
Health IT Modernization Programs

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price.
Contractor capacity for large-scale Oracle solutions.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown.
Potential for vendor lock-in with proprietary Oracle technology.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $33.0 million to AFFIGENT, LLC. ORACLE SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE SUPPORT, HARDWARE MAINTENANCE, AND EXADATA PLATFORMS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AFFIGENT, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Food and Drug Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-05-27. End: 2024-05-20.

What is the specific breakdown of costs between software, hardware maintenance, and support services?

The provided data does not offer a specific cost breakdown between software licensing, hardware maintenance, and support services. The total award of $32,993,600.16 covers all these elements under a single contract. To understand the value proposition of each component, a detailed line-item breakdown from the original contract solicitation or award documents would be necessary. This level of detail is crucial for benchmarking against industry standards for each service category and identifying potential areas of overspending or cost savings.

How does the pricing for Oracle Exadata platforms compare to market rates or other federal contracts?

Benchmarking the pricing for Oracle Exadata platforms within this $33 million contract is difficult without knowing the specific models, configurations, and support levels included. Exadata systems are high-performance, premium products. Federal agencies often negotiate volume discounts or leverage existing enterprise agreements. Comparing this contract's per-unit hardware costs or total platform acquisition/support costs against publicly available pricing or similar federal awards (e.g., from GSA schedules or other large agency procurements) would be required. The 'exclusion of sources' clause might also impact pricing, potentially limiting competitive downward pressure.

What specific performance metrics or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are in place for the software support and hardware maintenance?

The provided summary data does not detail the specific performance metrics or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract. Typically, such contracts would include clauses defining response times for hardware failures, software issue resolution targets, system uptime guarantees, and patch management schedules. The effectiveness of the $33 million award hinges on the rigor of these SLAs and the contractor's ability to meet them. The FDA's contracting officers would be responsible for monitoring performance against these metrics throughout the contract's duration.

What was the justification for excluding certain sources during the 'full and open competition' process?

The justification for excluding specific sources under the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' clause is not provided in the summary data. This procurement method is often used when specific technical requirements, security mandates, or existing infrastructure compatibility necessitate limiting the pool of potential bidders. For instance, if the FDA required highly specialized knowledge of their existing Oracle environment or specific security certifications only held by a few vendors, such exclusions might be warranted. A formal Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) document would typically detail these reasons.

What is the track record of Affigent, LLC in delivering similar large-scale Oracle solutions to federal agencies?

Information regarding Affigent, LLC's specific track record in delivering large-scale Oracle software, hardware, and support solutions, particularly involving Exadata platforms, is not detailed in the provided data. While Affigent is listed as the prime contractor, assessing their past performance, capacity, and success rate on comparable federal contracts is crucial for evaluating the risk associated with this $33 million award. Further investigation into their contract history, client CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) ratings, and demonstrated expertise in complex Oracle environments would be necessary.

How does the total spending on Oracle products and services by the FDA compare to previous years or other agencies?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific $33 million award and does not offer historical spending patterns for the FDA on Oracle products or comparisons with other federal agencies. To analyze historical trends, one would need access to multi-year spending data for the FDA's IT procurements, specifically related to Oracle. Comparing this figure to previous contract values for similar services, or to the overall IT budgets of agencies of similar size and mission (like other HHS operating divisions or health-focused agencies), would provide valuable context on whether this represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Other Computer Related Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › IT AND TELECOM - NETWORK

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: RFQ-FDA-21-1243629

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Nana Regional Corporation Inc.

Address: 2553 DULLES VIEW DR, HERNDON, VA, 20171

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,993,600

Exercised Options: $32,993,600

Current Obligation: $32,993,600

Actual Outlays: $30,807,755

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NNG15SC59B

IDV Type: GWAC

Timeline