DOT's $29.5M transit contract awarded without competition to WMATA, raising value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,477,403 ($29.5M)

Contractor: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2013-01-31

End Date: 2013-09-30

Contract Duration: 242 days

Daily Burn Rate: $121.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Transportation

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FARE MEDIA

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20001

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $29.5 million to WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FARE MEDIA Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is unclear due to the lack of competitive bidding. 2. Sole-source awards can limit price discovery and potentially lead to overspending. 3. The short duration of the contract (242 days) may indicate a specific, time-bound need. 4. Performance context is limited without details on the services rendered. 5. This contract falls within the broader transit and ground passenger transportation sector. 6. The absence of small business involvement is noted, as the contract was not set aside. 7. Oversight mechanisms for sole-source contracts are critical for ensuring accountability.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to assess if this contract represents good value for money. The fixed price nature provides some cost certainty, but the lack of comparison makes it hard to benchmark against market rates or similar services. The total award amount of $29.5 million for a 242-day period warrants scrutiny to ensure efficiency and prevent potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in urgent situations. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple bidders to offer their best prices, potentially impacting the final cost to the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's ability to secure the most economical option available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The contract likely supports transit operations and related services within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The geographic impact is concentrated in the District of Columbia and surrounding transit service areas. Workforce implications would primarily affect WMATA employees and potentially contractors supporting their operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about price reasonableness and potential for inflated costs.
Sole-source awards can bypass opportunities for innovative solutions from a wider vendor pool.
Limited transparency into the justification for sole-source award could obscure potential issues.
Short contract duration might indicate a reactive or emergency procurement, potentially at a premium.
Absence of small business participation limits opportunities for smaller firms in this sector.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a known entity (WMATA) may imply established working relationships and operational understanding.
Contract is for a specific, defined period, suggesting a contained scope of work.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the broader transit and ground passenger transportation sector, a critical component of public infrastructure. Spending in this area often involves large capital investments and ongoing operational support. Benchmarking this specific award is challenging without knowing the exact services rendered, but it represents a significant investment for its duration within a sector characterized by public service obligations and often public-private partnerships or government-run entities.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award to a large transit authority suggests the primary work is likely performed by the authority's own resources or larger prime contractors, potentially limiting the direct economic benefit to the small business ecosystem in this instance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Transportation's contracting officers and program managers. Given it's a sole-source award, scrutiny on the justification and performance is crucial. Transparency regarding the specific services and outcomes would be key to assessing accountability. The Inspector General's office may review such awards if specific concerns or allegations arise.

Related Government Programs

Federal Transit Administration Grants
Public Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
National Highway System Funding

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpricing
Limited transparency on justification

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $29.5 million to WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. IGF::OT::IGF FARE MEDIA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Immediate Office of the Secretary of Transportation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-01-31. End: 2013-09-30.

What specific services were procured under this $29.5 million contract with WMATA?

The provided data does not specify the exact services procured under contract number 485999. However, given the awardee is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the sector is 'All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation,' the services likely relate to the operation, maintenance, or enhancement of public transit systems within the WMATA service area. This could encompass anything from fleet management and service delivery to infrastructure upkeep or specialized transit initiatives. Further investigation into the contract's statement of work would be necessary for precise details.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source award. The specific justification for this sole-source determination is not provided in the abbreviated data. Typically, sole-source awards are justified under circumstances such as urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities possessed by only one source, or when it's impractical or impossible to obtain competition. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it's impossible to ascertain the precise rationale, but it implies that the Department of Transportation determined that WMATA was the only viable option for the required services within the given timeframe and constraints.

How does the $29.5 million award compare to typical spending for similar transit services?

Comparing this $29.5 million award is challenging without knowing the specific services rendered and the contract's duration. The contract spanned approximately 8 months (January 31, 2013, to September 30, 2013). If this amount covered operational support for a significant portion of WMATA's services, it might be within a reasonable range for a large metropolitan transit system. However, if it was for a more limited scope, the cost per month ($3.7 million) could be considered high, especially given the lack of competition. Benchmarking would require detailed service level agreements and cost breakdowns from comparable transit contracts, which are not available in the provided data.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a nearly $30 million contract without competition?

The primary risk associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude without competition is the potential for inflated pricing and reduced value for money. Without competitive bids, the government lacks the leverage to negotiate the best possible price. There's also a risk that the chosen vendor may not be the most innovative or efficient provider available. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create a perception of favoritism or a lack of due diligence, potentially undermining public trust. Ensuring robust oversight and performance monitoring becomes even more critical in such cases to mitigate these risks.

What was the historical spending pattern for this type of service prior to this contract?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for this specific contract or service type. To assess historical trends, one would need to examine previous contracts awarded by the Department of Transportation (or relevant agencies) to WMATA or other entities for similar transit services. Analyzing spending over multiple fiscal years would reveal whether this $29.5 million award represents an increase, decrease, or consistent level of investment in these services. Without this historical context, it's difficult to determine if this contract aligns with established spending patterns or represents a significant deviation.

What is the track record of WMATA as a contractor for the Department of Transportation?

WMATA, as a public transit authority, has a long operational history serving the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Its track record as a 'contractor' for the Department of Transportation (DOT) specifically would depend on the nature of previous agreements. DOT often partners with or funds transit authorities like WMATA for various initiatives, grants, and operational support. While WMATA's primary mission is public service, its ability to manage large budgets and deliver complex projects under contract is generally understood within the context of public transportation management. However, specific performance metrics or past issues related to DOT contracts would require a deeper dive into DOT's procurement history with WMATA.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation › All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation

Product/Service Code: TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCATION › OTHER TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCAT SV

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: 600 5TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20001

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,477,403

Exercised Options: $29,477,403

Current Obligation: $29,477,403

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTOS5911D00510

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline