Hud's $71.6M Contract With South East Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists LLC for Foreclosure Services Awarded in 1999
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $71,661,431 ($71.7M)
Contractor: South East Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists LLC
Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Start Date: 1999-11-15
End Date: 2004-12-15
Contract Duration: 1,857 days
Daily Burn Rate: $38.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: ADDISON, DALLAS County, TEXAS, 75001
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $71.7 million to SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing environment. 2. The contract duration of 1857 days (approx. 5 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The contract was awarded to a single entity, raising questions about the breadth of competition explored. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 5. Awarded in 1999, the contract predates many modern procurement transparency and data collection standards. 6. The significant dollar value suggests a substantial requirement for foreclosure-related services.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and the lack of readily available comparable data for foreclosure services from the late 1990s. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed for cost predictability. However, without detailed service breakdowns and market rates from that era, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The total award amount of $71.6 million over approximately five years indicates a significant investment in managing foreclosed properties.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which theoretically allows all responsible sources to submit an offer. However, the award went to a single entity, SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC. While the competition was open, the outcome suggests that only one offeror met the government's requirements or was the most advantageous. The number of bids received is not specified, which limits a deeper analysis of the competitive landscape.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a single awardee, generally aims to secure the best possible pricing and terms for taxpayers by allowing a wide range of potential providers to compete.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and potentially homeowners facing foreclosure, as the contract aims to manage these properties. Services delivered would include the management and disposition of foreclosed properties, ensuring they are maintained and sold efficiently. The geographic impact is primarily focused on Texas, as indicated by the awardee's location and state code. Workforce implications could involve the employment of individuals in property management, real estate, and administrative support roles within the contractor's organization.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detailed performance metrics and outcomes from the contract period.
- Limited transparency regarding the specific services rendered and their effectiveness.
- The age of the contract makes it difficult to assess current market relevance and pricing standards.
- Potential for vendor lock-in if the contractor developed specialized knowledge or processes over the contract's duration.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, indicating an effort to maximize market participation.
- Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the awarding agency.
- Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need that was met by the contractor.
- The contractor was selected to manage a significant volume of foreclosed properties, implying a level of capability.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically related to real estate management and disposition for government-owned properties. In the late 1990s, the market for such services was evolving, with government agencies increasingly relying on specialized firms to handle complex tasks like managing foreclosed assets. Comparable spending benchmarks from that era are scarce, but the scale of this award suggests it was a significant contract for HUD's property disposition needs in Texas.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The award to a single entity, SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC, suggests that larger or more established firms were likely participants or awardees in this procurement.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight mechanisms for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a contract awarded in 1999, the level of digital transparency and standardized reporting might be less robust compared to current contracts. Accountability would be tied to the terms of the firm fixed-price agreement and HUD's internal contract management processes. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- HUD Real Estate Owned (REO) Management
- Government Property Disposition Services
- Mortgage Default Servicing Contracts
- Federal Real Estate Asset Management
Risk Flags
- Contract awarded over 5 years ago.
- Limited data on competition details (number of bidders).
- Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data.
- No information on post-award modifications or disputes.
Tags
hud, real-estate-management, foreclosure-services, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, texas, professional-services, long-term-contract, government-contract, hud-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $71.7 million to SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC.
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 $71.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-11-15. End: 2004-12-15.
What was the specific scope of services provided under this contract?
The provided data does not detail the specific scope of services. However, given the contractor's name (SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS LLC) and the awarding agency (HUD), the services likely encompassed the management, maintenance, marketing, and sale of properties acquired by HUD through foreclosure. This could include tasks such as property inspections, securing properties, coordinating repairs, managing tenant issues (if applicable), listing properties for sale, and facilitating closing transactions. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined set of deliverables or a comprehensive management approach for a portfolio of foreclosed homes.
How did the pricing of this contract compare to market rates for similar services in the late 1990s?
Directly comparing the pricing of this $71.6 million contract to market rates from the late 1990s is challenging without access to detailed historical market data for foreclosure and property management services specific to that era and region. The 'full and open competition' award mechanism suggests HUD sought competitive bids, which should theoretically align pricing with market conditions. However, the lack of specific bid counts or detailed cost breakdowns in the provided data prevents a definitive benchmark analysis. The firm fixed-price structure implies that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which could indicate either a well-understood scope or a premium built into the price for that risk.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance?
The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used for this contract. Typically, for foreclosure management contracts, KPIs might include metrics such as the average time to sell a property, the ratio of sale price to appraised value, property preservation compliance rates, and the number of successful sales versus defaults or cancellations. HUD would have established specific performance standards within the contract documents, and the contractor's adherence to these would have been monitored throughout the contract's duration. Without access to the contract itself, these specific KPIs remain unknown.
Were there any significant challenges or disputes encountered during the contract's performance?
The provided summary data does not contain information regarding challenges or disputes encountered during the performance of this contract. Contract performance issues, disputes, or contract modifications are typically documented in contract management systems or agency records that are not reflected in this high-level award data. To ascertain if there were significant challenges, one would need to consult HUD's contract administration files, performance reviews, or any associated legal or administrative records pertaining to this specific agreement.
What was the historical spending pattern for similar foreclosure services by HUD prior to this contract?
The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for similar services by HUD prior to this contract. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to procurement databases or agency budget reports covering previous fiscal years. Understanding prior spending levels would help contextualize the $71.6 million award, indicating whether it represented an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in foreclosure management services. It would also reveal if HUD historically relied on multiple smaller contracts or fewer large ones for such services.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 5040 ADDISON CIR STE 300, ADDISON, TX, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $189,751,324
Exercised Options: $184,488,710
Current Obligation: $71,661,431
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-11-15
Current End Date: 2004-12-15
Potential End Date: 2004-12-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-07-25
Other Department of Housing and Urban Development Contracts
- Single Family Master Subservicer Services in Support of Ginnie Mae's Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Programs — $982.0M (Carrington Mortgage Services LLC)
- TAS::86 4585::TAS Award of Portion of Hits Solicitation Under RFP R-Opc-21970 Pursuant to Settlement Agreement. the Contractor Shall Provide Data Center, Help Desk, and Disaster Recovery Services — $620.3M (Peraton Enterprise Solutions LLC)
- TAS::86 4585::TAS Award of Portion of Hits RFP to LMC. the Contractor IS Responsible for Lotus Notes, Desktops, Laptops, Field Office Servers, Lans, Printers, and Kiosks — $498.6M (Lockheed Martin Services, LLC)
- Single Family Master Subservicer Igf::ot::igf — $343.6M (Carrington Mortgage Services LLC)
- Single Family Master Subservicer Igf::ot::igf — $314.2M (Selene Finance LP)
View all Department of Housing and Urban Development contracts →