GSA's $24.1M IT Enterprise Architecture Support contract awarded to Lakeview Center Inc. raises value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,164,967 ($24.2M)

Contractor: Lakeview Center Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2017-01-24

End Date: 2018-07-23

Contract Duration: 545 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF - DMDC EITS CIO ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT TO 64

Place of Performance

Location: SEASIDE, MONTEREY County, CALIFORNIA, 93955

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $24.2 million to LAKEVIEW CENTER INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF - DMDC EITS CIO ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT TO 64 Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is questionable given the lack of competitive bidding and the fixed-price nature. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for overpayment and reduced innovation. 3. The contract duration of 545 days for enterprise architecture support warrants scrutiny regarding efficiency. 4. Performance context is limited due to the 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' status. 5. This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically computer systems design. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $24.1 million for enterprise architecture support over approximately 18 months appears high, especially considering it was not competitively procured. Without benchmark data or comparison to similar contracts, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty but may not incentivize efficiency if the initial price was not rigorously justified.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' (NAF) status, indicating a sole-source procurement. This means there was likely a specific justification for not opening the contract to a broader range of bidders, such as a unique capability or a critical need that only one vendor could fulfill. The lack of competition limits price discovery and may result in a higher price than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure, as the government did not benefit from the price reductions typically seen in open bidding environments.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Federal Acquisition Service, which receives enterprise architecture support. The services delivered are focused on IT enterprise architecture, crucial for modernizing and streamlining federal IT systems. The geographic impact is likely national, supporting GSA's nationwide operations. Workforce implications include the direct employment of individuals by Lakeview Center Inc. to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader IT services sector, specifically focusing on computer systems design and related services. The market for enterprise architecture support is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. However, sole-source awards, like this one, bypass typical market dynamics. Comparable spending benchmarks for enterprise architecture support can vary widely based on scope, duration, and complexity, but a $24.1 million award over 18 months without competition warrants careful review.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a factor, as the 'sb' field is false and there was no small business set-aside. This sole-source award means that opportunities for small businesses to subcontract or compete directly were likely bypassed. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral in this instance, as it was not a set-aside, but it highlights a missed opportunity for potential small business engagement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the General Services Administration's contracting officers and program managers. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the lack of readily available performance data in the public domain.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

it-services, general-services-administration, enterprise-architecture, computer-systems-design, firm-fixed-price, sole-source, delivery-order, california, large-contract, it-support

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $24.2 million to LAKEVIEW CENTER INC. IGF::OT::IGF - DMDC EITS CIO ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT TO 64

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LAKEVIEW CENTER INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-01-24. End: 2018-07-23.

What specific enterprise architecture services were provided under this contract?

The contract, awarded to Lakeview Center Inc., was for 'CIO ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT TO 64'. While the specific deliverables are not detailed in the provided data, enterprise architecture support typically encompasses activities such as developing and maintaining enterprise-wide IT strategies, defining IT standards and policies, creating blueprints for IT systems, assessing current IT capabilities, and planning for future IT investments. This support is crucial for ensuring that IT investments align with the agency's mission and strategic goals, promoting interoperability, and optimizing IT resources across the organization.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis?

The contract was designated as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' (CT: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION), which signifies a sole-source award. Agencies typically justify sole-source awards when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling needs, or specific statutory authority. Without further documentation from the GSA, the precise reason for this sole-source determination remains undisclosed, but it implies that a competitive process was deemed impractical or impossible in this instance.

How does the fixed-price contract type impact the value for money?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, like this one, establishes a ceiling price that the contractor must not exceed. While this provides cost certainty for the government, the value for money hinges on the initial negotiation and the contractor's ability to perform efficiently within that price. If the initial price was not rigorously benchmarked or if the scope was not clearly defined, the government might overpay for the services rendered. Conversely, if the contractor incurs costs exceeding the fixed price, they absorb the loss, which can incentivize them to cut corners if not properly monitored.

What is the typical cost for similar enterprise architecture support contracts?

Benchmarking the cost of enterprise architecture support is complex due to variations in scope, duration, and the specific services required. However, contracts for similar IT architecture and systems design services can range significantly. For a contract valued at $24.1 million over approximately 18 months, one would expect a comprehensive suite of services, potentially including strategic planning, policy development, and system integration support. Without access to GSA's internal cost analysis or data on comparable sole-source awards, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, the absence of competition suggests this price may not have been optimized through market forces.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source IT services contract of this magnitude?

Sole-source IT services contracts of this magnitude carry several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to inflated prices, as the contractor faces no pressure to offer the most cost-effective solution. Secondly, it can stifle innovation, as there's less incentive for the incumbent to explore novel approaches. Thirdly, it can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to transition to a different provider later. Finally, without a competitive process to vet multiple vendors, there's a heightened risk that the chosen contractor may not be the best fit in terms of technical expertise or performance, despite the agency's initial justification.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesComputer Systems Design and Related ServicesComputer Systems Design Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONSADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: ID03170020

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Escambia County School District (UEI: 808973353)

Address: 1221 W LAKEVIEW AVE, PENSACOLA, FL, 32501

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,526,799

Exercised Options: $24,164,967

Current Obligation: $24,164,967

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: H9821013D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2017-01-24

Current End Date: 2018-07-23

Potential End Date: 2018-07-23 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2019-05-17

More Contracts from Lakeview Center Inc

View all Lakeview Center Inc federal contracts →

Other General Services Administration Contracts

View all General Services Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending