Department of Agriculture awards $23.86M firm-fixed-price contract for Miami, Florida services, inherited from APHIS

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,863,104 ($23.9M)

Contractor: Hitt Contracting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2006-05-22

End Date: 2011-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,896 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THIS CONTRACT FOR PHASE III, PPQ, MIAMI, FLORIDA WAS INHERITED FROM APHIS (CONTRACT NO. 50-32KW-2-037). THIS AWARD IS REALLY MOD 11 TO THE CONTRACT.

Place of Performance

Location: MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE County, FLORIDA, 33152

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $23.9 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC. for work described as: THIS CONTRACT FOR PHASE III, PPQ, MIAMI, FLORIDA WAS INHERITED FROM APHIS (CONTRACT NO. 50-32KW-2-037). THIS AWARD IS REALLY MOD 11 TO THE CONTRACT. Key points: 1. Contract represents a modification to an existing agreement, indicating continuity of services. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. Awarded to HITT CONTRACTING, INC., a known entity in federal contracting. 4. The contract duration spans over 1800 days, suggesting a long-term service requirement. 5. Geographic focus on Florida implies specific regional needs being addressed. 6. The 'Not Competed' status warrants further investigation into procurement rationale.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $23.86 million over its duration suggests a significant investment. Without specific details on the services rendered or comparable contracts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price nature indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. The inherited nature of the contract also means that initial pricing and scope were established under a previous administration, making direct comparison difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating it was likely awarded under specific circumstances such as an existing relationship or a sole-source justification. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that the government did not benefit from the potential price reductions and service innovations that typically arise from open competition. Understanding the rationale behind the sole-source award is crucial for assessing its impact on cost efficiency.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for the services rendered, as the usual downward pressure from multiple bids was absent.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and potentially other entities within the Department of Agriculture requiring the services provided in Miami, Florida. The contract supports ongoing operations and services critical to the ARS mission within the specified geographic area. The geographic impact is concentrated in Miami, Florida, suggesting services are tailored to local or regional agricultural research needs. Workforce implications would involve personnel employed by HITT CONTRACTING, INC. to fulfill the contract's requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and reduced incentive for cost efficiency.
Inherited contract status makes it difficult to assess the initial procurement's value and justification.
Limited transparency regarding the specific services rendered and performance metrics.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially leading to budget predictability.
Long contract duration suggests a stable and ongoing need for the services.
Award to an established contractor like HITT CONTRACTING, INC. may imply a level of trust and past performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader category of government services, potentially related to facilities management, construction, or specialized support for agricultural research. The federal government is a significant consumer of such services, with spending often driven by infrastructure needs, operational support, and research initiatives. Benchmarking this contract's value would require detailed information on the specific services provided and comparison with similar contracts awarded to private sector entities for comparable tasks.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a stated factor in this award (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have explicit subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular award is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses in their supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Research Service. As a firm-fixed-price contract, oversight would focus on ensuring the contractor meets the defined scope of work and performance standards. Transparency regarding specific oversight mechanisms, accountability measures, and whether an Inspector General has jurisdiction over this specific award would require further investigation into the contract's detailed terms and conditions.

Related Government Programs

Department of Agriculture Operations
Agricultural Research Service Facilities Management
Federal Contract Modifications
Sole-Source Procurement
Long-Term Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification.
Multiple contract modifications may indicate scope creep or poor initial planning.
Lack of transparency on specific services and performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $23.9 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC.. THIS CONTRACT FOR PHASE III, PPQ, MIAMI, FLORIDA WAS INHERITED FROM APHIS (CONTRACT NO. 50-32KW-2-037). THIS AWARD IS REALLY MOD 11 TO THE CONTRACT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HITT CONTRACTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-05-22. End: 2011-07-31.

What specific services were provided under this contract, and how do they align with the Agricultural Research Service's mission in Miami?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under this contract. However, given its inheritance by the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and its location in Miami, Florida, it is plausible that the services relate to facility maintenance, construction, specialized equipment support, or logistical operations essential for ARS research activities in the region. The ARS mission focuses on 'delivering the discoveries that help America provide a safe, affordable, abundant food supply and protect our environment.' Therefore, the contract likely supported the infrastructure or operational needs that enable this research. Further details would be found in the contract's statement of work.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, especially given its significant value?

The data indicates this contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' classifying it as sole-source. The justification for such an award typically stems from unique capabilities of the contractor, urgent needs where competition is impractical, or when the contract is a modification to an existing, previously competed award where changing contractors would be detrimental. Since this contract was inherited from APHIS (Contract No. 50-32KW-2-037) and is Modification 11, the sole-source nature likely arises from the continuation of services under the original contract's framework. A formal justification document, often found in the contract file, would detail the specific reasons why full and open competition was not pursued for this modification.

How does the $23.86 million value compare to similar contracts for services in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area?

Directly comparing the $23.86 million value of this contract to similar services in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area is challenging without knowing the specific nature of the services. If the contract is for large-scale construction or long-term facility management, the value might be within a typical range for federal contracts of that scope. However, if it pertains to more specialized support, it could represent a higher-than-average cost. Benchmarking would require identifying contracts with identical or highly similar North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and service descriptions within the same geographic region and time frame. The inherited and modified nature of this contract further complicates direct comparisons.

What is the track record of HITT CONTRACTING, INC. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Agriculture?

HITT CONTRACTING, INC. is a well-established construction firm with a significant presence in federal contracting. While the provided data confirms their award for this specific Department of Agriculture contract, a comprehensive track record analysis would involve examining their past performance on other federal contracts across various agencies. This would include reviewing contract values, types of services rendered, performance ratings (if available), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Their involvement in numerous projects suggests experience, but specific performance metrics related to this contract or similar USDA endeavors would require deeper database searches.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract that has been modified multiple times?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally favored for shifting cost risk to the contractor. However, when an FFP contract undergoes numerous modifications (this is Mod 11), it can indicate potential issues. Risks include scope creep, where the original scope is expanded without adequate price adjustments, potentially negating the FFP benefit. It could also signal poor initial planning or unforeseen complexities that require frequent adjustments. For taxpayers, multiple modifications on an FFP contract might suggest that the initial price was not fully reflective of the eventual work, or that the government is paying more than initially anticipated through change orders, even if the base price remains fixed.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar services by the Agricultural Research Service in Florida?

The provided data offers a snapshot of a single contract modification and does not allow for an analysis of historical spending patterns for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in Florida. To understand historical spending, one would need to access databases containing ARS contract awards over several fiscal years, filter by geographic location (Florida) and relevant service categories (e.g., facility maintenance, construction, research support). Analyzing these patterns would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the prevalence of competitive versus sole-source awards, providing context for the current contract's significance and cost.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2457 W AVIATION AVE, CHARLESTON, SC, 06

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,863,104

Exercised Options: $23,863,104

Current Obligation: $23,863,104

Timeline