Justice Department's $21.9M asset forfeiture IT contract awarded to Unisys Corporation shows mixed value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,901,469 ($21.9M)

Contractor: Unisys Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2011-10-01

End Date: 2013-02-28

Contract Duration: 516 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: ASSET FORFEITURE MANAGEMENT

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20530

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $21.9 million to UNISYS CORPORATION for work described as: ASSET FORFEITURE MANAGEMENT Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is questionable given the lack of detailed performance metrics and a high per-unit cost. 2. Competition dynamics were favorable, with a full and open competition likely driving better pricing. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long contract duration and time-and-materials pricing structure. 4. Performance context is limited due to the absence of specific deliverables and success metrics. 5. The contract positions the Department of Justice within the IT services sector, specifically for asset forfeiture management. 6. The total award value of $21.9M over its period of performance suggests a significant investment in IT infrastructure for this specialized function.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $21.9M over approximately 1.5 years for asset forfeiture management software and services appears high when considering the limited performance data available. Benchmarking against similar government IT contracts for specialized management systems is difficult without more granular details on the services provided and the specific functionalities of the software. The time-and-materials pricing structure, while flexible, can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, further impacting the perceived value.

Cost Per Unit: $42,445 per unit cost benchmark, though the definition of 'unit' is unclear without further context.

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. While the number of bidders is not specified, this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which should theoretically lead to more favorable pricing and better service offerings for the government. The open competition suggests that the Department of Justice sought the best value available in the market for its asset forfeiture management needs.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a competitive market rate, preventing potential overspending that might occur with less competitive procurement methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Justice's asset forfeiture programs, which receive enhanced IT support. Services delivered include computer and software support related to asset forfeiture management. The geographic impact is national, supporting federal law enforcement and judicial processes across the United States. Workforce implications include support for personnel involved in managing and processing forfeited assets.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT services provided.
Time and materials contract type can lead to unpredictable costs if not closely monitored.
The duration of the contract (over 1.5 years) combined with the award amount suggests a substantial investment, warranting close scrutiny of ongoing value.
The specific nature of 'asset forfeiture management' software and services is not detailed, raising questions about its scope and necessity.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract addresses a critical function within the Department of Justice, aiming to improve the management of forfeited assets.
The contractor, Unisys Corporation, is a large, established entity with experience in government IT services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader IT services sector, specifically focusing on software and management solutions for government agencies. The market for government IT services is substantial, with agencies increasingly relying on specialized software to manage complex operations like asset forfeiture. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other contracts for case management, financial tracking, or specialized database solutions within federal law enforcement and judicial branches.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, nor is there information on subcontracting plans. As a large contract awarded to a major IT provider, the primary focus is likely on the prime contractor's capabilities. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved in the supply chain or if subcontracting opportunities were pursued.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the Department of Justice's procurement oversight bodies. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance clauses within the contract, though these are not detailed in the provided data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Justice IT Modernization Programs
Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund
Law Enforcement Technology Contracts
Justice Department Case Management Systems

Risk Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics.
Time and materials pricing structure.
Limited transparency on specific services and deliverables.
Unclear definition of 'unit' for per-unit cost benchmark.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $21.9 million to UNISYS CORPORATION. ASSET FORFEITURE MANAGEMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNISYS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Offices, Boards and Divisions).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-10-01. End: 2013-02-28.

What specific IT services and software functionalities were provided under this contract to support asset forfeiture management?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'ASSET FORFEITURE MANAGEMENT' and falls under the 'Computer and Software Stores' category (NAICS 443120). However, it lacks specifics on the exact software functionalities, such as case tracking, financial reconciliation, evidence management, or reporting capabilities. It is likely that Unisys Corporation provided a combination of software licenses, customization, integration services, and potentially ongoing maintenance and support for a system designed to streamline the complex processes involved in managing assets seized through legal forfeiture proceedings. Without more detailed contract documentation, the precise scope of services remains generalized.

How does the per-unit cost of $42,445 compare to similar government contracts for asset management IT solutions?

The per-unit cost of $42,445 is difficult to benchmark accurately without understanding what constitutes a 'unit' in this context. If a 'unit' refers to a full software license with implementation and support for a specific user or function, it might be within a reasonable range for specialized government IT solutions. However, if 'unit' refers to something more granular, like a single module or a month of service, it could be considered high. Comparable contracts for enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems or specialized case management software in other federal agencies can range significantly, from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit or module, depending on complexity and vendor. Further analysis would require defining the 'unit' and comparing it to similar contract line items.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or success metrics defined in the contract, and how did Unisys Corporation perform against them?

The provided summary data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or success metrics that were part of the contract with Unisys Corporation. Contracts of this nature typically include clauses related to system uptime, response times for support, data accuracy, and successful completion of specific IT project milestones. Without access to the full contract or performance reports, it is impossible to assess Unisys Corporation's performance against defined objectives. The absence of readily available performance data makes a thorough evaluation of the contract's effectiveness challenging.

What is the historical spending pattern for asset forfeiture management IT systems within the Department of Justice?

The provided data represents a single contract award of $21.9 million for asset forfeiture management IT services to Unisys Corporation, spanning from October 2011 to February 2013. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to examine prior and subsequent contracts for similar services within the Department of Justice. This would involve searching contract databases for keywords like 'asset forfeiture,' 'case management,' 'financial tracking,' and 'IT services' awarded to various contractors over multiple fiscal years. Analyzing these patterns would reveal trends in spending, identify key vendors, and indicate whether this $21.9 million award represents a typical investment or a significant deviation.

Given the time-and-materials pricing structure, what measures were in place to control costs and ensure value?

Time-and-materials (T&M) contracts, like the one awarded to Unisys Corporation, offer flexibility but carry inherent risks of cost escalation. Standard control measures typically include establishing ceiling prices, requiring detailed timesheets and expense reports, implementing strict approval processes for work hours and materials, and defining labor categories with pre-negotiated rates. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) plays a crucial role in monitoring contractor effort and ensuring that work performed aligns with contract requirements and is reasonably priced. Without specific contract clauses or performance reports, it's difficult to detail the exact controls employed, but these are the general mechanisms used to manage T&M contracts.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Retail Trade › Electronics and Appliance Stores › Computer and Software Stores

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8008 WESTPARK DR, MC LEAN, VA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,026,726

Exercised Options: $21,901,469

Current Obligation: $21,901,469

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DJJ07F1502

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline