HUD awards $9.3M for field service management in Michigan, with a 2-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,340,884 ($9.3M)

Contractor: J G M Property Group, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2025-12-20

End Date: 2026-12-19

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIELD SERVICE MANAGEMENT AREA [1P/4P]

Place of Performance

Location: SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48316

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $9.3 million to J G M PROPERTY GROUP, INC. for work described as: FIELD SERVICE MANAGEMENT AREA [1P/4P] Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a 2-year service delivery period. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. Fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. The contract is for residential property management services. 5. Performance is expected in Michigan. 6. The contract is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $9.3 million over two years for field service management, specifically residential property management, seems aligned with industry standards for similar services. Benchmarking against other federal contracts for property management in similar geographic areas would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm fixed-price structure helps control costs, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and efficiency of services delivered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors were likely invited to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this procurement method generally fosters competitive pricing and encourages a wider range of potential contractors to participate. The agency sought proposals from all responsible sources.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a broader selection of qualified service providers, maximizing the value received for public funds.

Public Impact

Residents in HUD-managed properties in Michigan will benefit from consistent property management services. The contract ensures the upkeep and management of residential properties. The geographic impact is focused on Michigan. The contract supports jobs in the property management sector within Michigan.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for service quality variations between different property managers.
Dependence on contractor's ability to manage diverse resident needs.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract limits financial risk to the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for good value.
Delivery order structure implies it's part of an existing, potentially vetted, contract vehicle.

Sector Analysis

The field service management sector, particularly residential property management, is a significant market supporting government housing initiatives. This contract fits within the broader category of facilities support services. Comparable spending benchmarks for property management services vary widely based on property type, size, and location, but federal agencies frequently contract for these services to maintain their real estate holdings.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not detailed in the provided data. As this was a full and open competition, it does not appear to have been specifically set aside for small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses are participating as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs
Public Housing Agency (PHA) operations
Government property management contracts

Risk Flags

Contract duration is relatively short (2 years), potentially limiting long-term stability or requiring frequent re-competition.
Specific performance metrics and quality standards are not detailed in the provided data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $9.3 million to J G M PROPERTY GROUP, INC.. FIELD SERVICE MANAGEMENT AREA [1P/4P]

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is J G M PROPERTY GROUP, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department of Housing and Urban Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-12-20. End: 2026-12-19.

What is the track record of J G M PROPERTY GROUP, INC. with federal contracts, particularly with HUD?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to assess J G M PROPERTY GROUP, INC.'s past performance. This would involve examining their contract history, including the types of services provided, contract values, duration, and any reported performance issues or awards. Specifically, looking at their history with HUD would indicate their experience and reliability in managing properties for the agency. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record.

How does the per-unit cost of property management compare to similar contracts awarded by HUD or other agencies?

To benchmark the per-unit cost, we would need to define a 'unit' (e.g., per property, per housing unit, per square foot) and gather data on comparable contracts. The provided data does not include unit counts or specific service details that would allow for a direct per-unit cost comparison. However, the total contract value of $9.3 million over two years suggests an average annual cost of $4.65 million. If this contract covers a significant portfolio of properties, the cost might be reasonable, but a detailed comparison requires more granular data on the scope of services and the number of units managed.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential underperformance by the contractor, leading to issues with property maintenance or resident satisfaction, and the possibility of unforeseen costs if the scope of work expands beyond the initial fixed-price agreement. Mitigation strategies include the firm fixed-price contract type, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. Additionally, HUD's oversight, performance monitoring, and clear contract requirements are crucial for ensuring satisfactory service delivery and addressing any emerging issues promptly.

How effective has HUD been in managing similar field service management contracts in the past?

Assessing HUD's overall effectiveness in managing similar contracts would require analyzing historical data on contract performance, dispute resolution, and contractor performance evaluations across multiple contracts. Factors to consider include the agency's ability to define clear requirements, monitor performance adequately, and enforce contract terms. Without specific historical performance data for HUD's property management contracts, a definitive statement on their effectiveness cannot be made, though the continued issuance of such contracts suggests a perceived need and ongoing effort.

What is the historical spending trend for field service management or residential property management by HUD?

To determine historical spending trends, one would need to access and analyze HUD's procurement data over several fiscal years. This analysis would involve aggregating spending on contracts categorized under field service management or residential property management. Observing this trend would reveal whether HUD's investment in these services is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, providing context for the current $9.3 million award.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Activities Related to Real Estate › Residential Property Managers

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7747 25 MILE RD, SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MI, 48316

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,340,884

Exercised Options: $9,340,884

Current Obligation: $9,340,884

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 86614524D00002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline