HUD awards $21.5M contract for field compliance review services to Guidehouse Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,531,597 ($21.5M)

Contractor: Guidehouse Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2024-06-15

End Date: 2025-12-15

Contract Duration: 548 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: BRIDGE CONTRACT - FIELD COMPLIANCE REVIEW (FCR) SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20410

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $21.5 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC. for work described as: BRIDGE CONTRACT - FIELD COMPLIANCE REVIEW (FCR) SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a time and materials basis, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed closely. 2. The contract was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures, suggesting a potential lack of broad market engagement. 3. The duration of 548 days indicates a significant need for ongoing services. 4. The award amount of $21.5 million for accounting services falls within a moderate spending range for federal contracts of this nature. 5. The contract is for field compliance review services, a critical function for ensuring program integrity. 6. The sole awardee, Guidehouse Inc., will be responsible for delivering these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $21.5 million for field compliance review services over approximately 1.5 years appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized government support. However, the time and materials pricing structure introduces uncertainty regarding the final cost. Benchmarking against similar contracts for FCR services is difficult without more detailed service scope and performance metrics. The absence of a competitive bidding process also limits the ability to assess if the pricing reflects optimal value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP,' which typically means it was not competed using simplified acquisition procedures. This could imply various reasons, such as urgency, a specific requirement that only one vendor could meet, or that it was awarded through other contracting vehicles. Without further details on the specific justification for not competing under SAP, it is difficult to ascertain the level of competition. The fact that it is a definitive contract with a single awardee suggests limited direct competition for this specific award.

Taxpayer Impact: When contracts are not competed broadly, taxpayers may not benefit from the most competitive pricing that could be achieved through a wider solicitation process.

Public Impact

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) benefits from this contract by securing essential field compliance review services. These services are crucial for ensuring the integrity and proper execution of HUD's programs and initiatives. The contract's impact is primarily administrative and operational within HUD, supporting its mission to create strong, sustainable communities. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, as HUD programs often have broad reach, though specific field reviews may be concentrated in certain areas. The contract supports the workforce within Guidehouse Inc. and potentially subcontractors involved in delivering these compliance services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and materials contract type can lead to cost escalation if not closely monitored.
Lack of clear competition details raises questions about potential price optimization.
The specific scope of 'field compliance review' needs detailed oversight to ensure effectiveness and prevent scope creep.

Positive Signals

Award to an established firm, Guidehouse Inc., suggests potential for reliable service delivery.
The contract addresses a critical need for HUD's oversight functions.
The definitive contract award provides a clear framework for service delivery over the specified period.

Sector Analysis

The accounting services sector within the federal government encompasses a wide range of support functions, from auditing and financial management to specialized compliance reviews. This contract falls under the 'Other Accounting Services' category (NAICS 541219). Federal spending in this sector is substantial, driven by the need for financial accountability and program oversight across all agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost of similar compliance review contracts across different federal agencies, considering factors like the number of reviews, complexity, and geographic scope.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, it is unlikely to directly benefit small businesses through set-asides. However, Guidehouse Inc., as a large prime contractor, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract requirements, depending on the nature of the field compliance reviews and the specific expertise needed.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring performance, approving invoices, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. The time and materials nature of the contract necessitates rigorous oversight to control costs and ensure efficient use of resources. Transparency would be enhanced through public contract databases, but detailed performance reports are typically internal to the agency.

Related Government Programs

HUD Auditing and Compliance Programs
Federal Financial Management Services
Government Contract Oversight
Program Integrity Reviews

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (T&M)
Limited Competition Concerns
Scope Definition and Management

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $21.5 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC.. BRIDGE CONTRACT - FIELD COMPLIANCE REVIEW (FCR) SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GUIDEHOUSE 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 $21.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-06-15. End: 2025-12-15.

What is the specific scope of 'Field Compliance Review (FCR) Services' under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of 'Field Compliance Review (FCR) Services.' Typically, such services involve on-site assessments and evaluations of how HUD programs and grants are being administered at the local or regional level. This could include verifying financial records, ensuring adherence to regulatory requirements, assessing program performance against objectives, and identifying potential risks or areas for improvement. The exact nature of these reviews would be defined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is not included in the provided data. Understanding the SOW is critical for evaluating the contract's value and effectiveness.

How does the time and materials (T&M) pricing structure compare to other federal contracts for similar services?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are common in the federal government, particularly for services where the scope of work is not clearly defined at the outset or is expected to evolve. However, they carry a higher risk of cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts. For compliance review services, a T&M structure might be used if the number or complexity of field reviews is variable. Agencies often prefer fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts when the scope is well-defined to ensure better cost predictability. The benchmark for T&M in this sector depends heavily on the labor categories, hourly rates, and the efficiency of the contractor in managing their time.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' award for this type of service?

Awarding a contract without competition under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) can pose several risks. Primarily, it limits the opportunity for the government to obtain the best possible pricing through a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. It may also restrict the agency's access to a wider pool of innovative solutions or specialized expertise that other vendors might offer. Furthermore, the lack of competition can sometimes raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process. While there can be legitimate reasons for non-competitive awards (e.g., sole-source capabilities, urgent needs), these should be well-documented and justified.

What is Guidehouse Inc.'s track record with federal contracts, particularly for HUD or similar agencies?

Guidehouse Inc. is a well-established government contractor with a significant presence across various federal agencies, including HUD. They have a history of providing a wide range of professional services, including financial consulting, risk management, and program support. While specific details of their past performance on HUD compliance review contracts are not provided here, their general track record suggests they possess the capacity and experience to handle such engagements. A deeper analysis would involve reviewing past performance evaluations and contract histories available through federal procurement databases.

How does the $21.5 million award compare to historical federal spending on field compliance review services?

Without specific historical data for HUD's field compliance review services or comparable contracts across the government, it's challenging to provide a precise benchmark. However, $21.5 million over approximately 1.5 years represents a significant investment in oversight functions. Federal spending on professional services, including compliance and auditing, can fluctuate based on agency needs, regulatory changes, and budget allocations. To establish a comparison, one would need to analyze spending trends for similar services (e.g., program audits, grant monitoring, site inspections) across agencies like HUD, GSA, or HHS over the past several fiscal years.

What are the implications of this contract being awarded in Washington D.C. (st: DC)?

The contract's place of performance being listed as Washington D.C. (st: DC) suggests that the primary work location or administrative hub for this contract is in the nation's capital. This could mean that the contractor's personnel will be based there, or that key oversight and management functions will be conducted from D.C. For HUD, having a contract managed or performed in D.C. might facilitate closer coordination with agency headquarters and policymakers. It could also imply that the field reviews themselves might be concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic region, or that D.C. serves as a central point for coordinating nationwide reviews.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services › Other Accounting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: 86615524Q00005

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.

Address: 1676 INTERNATIONAL DR STE 800, MC LEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,531,597

Exercised Options: $21,531,597

Current Obligation: $21,531,597

Actual Outlays: $7,739,133

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline