GSA's $35M IT Products contract with Mississippi State University saw significant spending over 4 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,292,652 ($35.3M)

Contractor: Mississippi State University

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2005-08-31

End Date: 2009-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,461 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.2K/day

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: IT PRODUCTS

Place of Performance

Location: LORTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22079

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $35.3 million to MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY for work described as: IT PRODUCTS Key points: 1. Contract value indicates substantial IT product needs for the university. 2. The contract duration suggests a long-term relationship for IT procurement. 3. Limited competition may have impacted price discovery and value for money. 4. Performance context is crucial to understand if IT products met evolving needs. 5. Sector positioning within higher education IT procurement requires further analysis.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without specific IT product details and market rates at the time. The total award of over $35 million over four years suggests a significant volume of IT products were procured. However, without knowing the specific items, quantities, and comparison to similar university procurements or GSA Schedule pricing, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The 'COST NO FEE' pricing structure also warrants scrutiny to ensure it reflected fair market value and didn't include excessive markups.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The competition level for this contract is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. If this was a sole-source or limited competition award, it could mean higher prices for taxpayers and potentially less innovation. Understanding the solicitation process, the number of bidders, and the rationale for the chosen procurement method is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of competition in achieving best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can lead to higher costs for taxpayers if not managed carefully, as it reduces the pressure on contractors to offer the most competitive pricing.

Public Impact

Mississippi State University benefits from a streamlined procurement process for IT products. Faculty, staff, and students likely benefit from access to necessary IT equipment and software. The contract supports the university's operational and academic functions. Geographic impact is primarily focused on Mississippi State University's campus and potentially its affiliated research centers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed product specifications makes value assessment difficult.
Unknown competition level raises concerns about potential overpricing.
Contract duration might not align with rapid IT obsolescence.

Positive Signals

Sustained IT procurement for a major educational institution.
Potential for economies of scale in purchasing IT products.
Long-term relationship may foster vendor reliability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology sector, specifically IT products procurement for a large educational institution. The higher education IT market is characterized by significant demand for hardware, software, and related services. Spending benchmarks for similar university IT procurements would typically range from millions to tens of millions annually, depending on the institution's size and research focus. GSA Schedules are a common vehicle for federal and state/local entities to access IT products.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. Without this information, it's impossible to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem. Typically, larger contracts may have subcontracting requirements to ensure small businesses participate in the supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. GSA's oversight mechanisms include contract administration, performance monitoring, and ensuring compliance with federal acquisition regulations. Transparency would depend on GSA's reporting practices and the availability of contract details through public databases.

Related Government Programs

GSA Schedules Program
Higher Education IT Procurement
Information Technology Products and Services

Risk Flags

Potential for outdated technology due to contract length.
Lack of transparency on competition level.
Unclear role of Mississippi State University as a contractor for IT products.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $35.3 million to MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY. IT PRODUCTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-31. End: 2009-08-31.

What specific types of IT products were procured under this contract, and how did their pricing compare to market rates at the time?

The provided data identifies the contract as being for 'IT PRODUCTS' but lacks specific details on the types of products (e.g., laptops, servers, software licenses) or their quantities. Without this granular information, a direct comparison to market rates at the time of award (2005-2009) is not feasible. The 'COST NO FEE' pricing structure suggests that the contractor passed through costs plus a fee, but the nature and reasonableness of that fee are unknown. To assess pricing, one would need access to the contract's line item details and compare them against GSA Schedule pricing, commercial price lists from vendors like Dell, HP, or Apple, and potentially other government contract awards for similar items during that period.

What was the rationale for awarding this contract to Mississippi State University, and what was the competition level?

The data indicates Mississippi State University as the 'contractor' (co), which is unusual as universities are typically recipients of federal grants or contracts, not providers of IT products on a large scale. This suggests a potential misinterpretation of the data or a unique arrangement. If MSU was indeed the contractor providing IT products, the rationale and competition level are entirely unknown from the provided snippet. Typically, IT products are procured from commercial vendors through GSA Schedules or other competitive solicitations. If this was a direct award to MSU, the justification for bypassing traditional IT vendors and the level of competition would be critical areas for review.

How did the performance of IT products procured under this contract align with Mississippi State University's needs and expectations over the contract period?

Assessing performance alignment requires access to performance reports, user feedback, and any documented issues or successes related to the IT products delivered. The contract duration of four years (2005-2009) means the technology landscape evolved significantly during its term. It's important to understand if the procured products remained relevant and functional throughout this period, or if obsolescence became a factor. Without specific performance metrics or qualitative feedback from Mississippi State University, it's impossible to determine how well the IT products met their evolving academic and operational requirements.

What was the total spending trend over the life of the contract, and were there any significant fluctuations?

The total award amount for this contract was $35,292,652.25, spanning a duration of 1461 days (approximately 4 years) from August 31, 2005, to August 31, 2009. While the total value is provided, the data does not break down spending on an annual or quarterly basis. Therefore, it's not possible to identify specific spending trends or significant fluctuations within the contract period. A detailed analysis would require access to the contract's payment history or obligation data to understand the pace and pattern of expenditures.

Were there any identified risks associated with this contract, such as contractor performance issues, cost overruns, or security vulnerabilities?

The provided data does not contain specific risk flags or details regarding contractor performance, cost overruns, or security vulnerabilities. The 'COST NO FEE' pricing model, while potentially efficient, can sometimes mask underlying cost issues if not rigorously monitored. The long duration of the contract (4 years) also increases the potential for risks related to technology obsolescence or changes in the contractor's ability to deliver. A comprehensive risk assessment would necessitate reviewing contract performance reports, audit findings, and any documented issues raised by the contracting officer or end-users.

Contractor Details

Address: BARR AVE MCARTHUR HALL RD, MISSISSIPPI STATE, MS, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Educational Institution, Higher Education, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,295,346

Exercised Options: $35,292,652

Current Obligation: $35,292,652

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS04T01BFC0060

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline