IBM Technology Insertion contract awarded by GSA for $40.8M, highlighting IT hardware and software procurement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,804,606 ($40.8M)

Contractor: International Business Machines Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2012-04-13

End Date: 2013-05-31

Contract Duration: 413 days

Daily Burn Rate: $98.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: IBM TECHNOLOGY INSERTION 1112

Place of Performance

Location: LORTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22079

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $40.8 million to INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION for work described as: IBM TECHNOLOGY INSERTION 1112 Key points: 1. The contract value of $40.8 million represents a significant investment in IT infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open approach, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 4. Performance is tied to a delivery order, implying specific project-based needs. 5. This contract falls within the IT sector, specifically computer and software stores. 6. The duration of approximately 13 months suggests a focused, short-to-medium term requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without more granular data on the exact technology inserted and its market price at the time. However, the $40.8 million award for a 13-month period for IT hardware and software insertion suggests a substantial procurement. Comparing it to similar large-scale IT refresh or insertion contracts would be necessary for a more precise value assessment. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and a wider range of solutions. The presence of 4 offers (indicated by 'no': 4) suggests a reasonable level of interest and competition for this procurement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and ensuring the government receives the best value available.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring updated IT hardware and software are the primary beneficiaries. The contract facilitates the insertion of new technologies into existing government systems. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting federal IT infrastructure across various locations. Workforce implications may include IT professionals involved in the installation, integration, and maintenance of the new technology.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if specific proprietary technologies are mandated.
Risk of technology obsolescence if the insertion cycle is not managed effectively.
Dependence on IBM's product roadmap and support for the inserted technologies.

Positive Signals

Leverages established vendor relationship with IBM for potentially streamlined procurement.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.

Sector Analysis

This contract operates within the Information Technology sector, specifically focusing on the procurement and integration of computer hardware and software. The market for IT solutions for government agencies is substantial, with numerous vendors competing to provide everything from basic hardware to complex software systems and cloud services. This contract appears to be for a technology insertion, which is a common practice for government agencies to keep their IT infrastructure current and secure, often involving significant investments in upgrades and replacements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee is likely a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would primarily arise if IBM engages in subcontracting, which is not detailed here. The focus on a large prime contractor may limit direct opportunities for small businesses in this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA), which awarded the contract through its Federal Acquisition Service. The contract type (firm fixed-price) and the delivery order structure provide some level of accountability. Further oversight mechanisms would include contract performance reviews, payment audits, and potentially Inspector General investigations if any irregularities were suspected. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS.

Related Government Programs

IT Hardware Procurement
Software Licensing and Maintenance
Technology Modernization Programs
Cloud Computing Services
Cybersecurity Solutions

Risk Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in
Technology obsolescence risk
Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data
Limited visibility into specific technology components

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $40.8 million to INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION. IBM TECHNOLOGY INSERTION 1112

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $40.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-04-13. End: 2013-05-31.

What specific IBM technologies were inserted under this contract, and what was the rationale for their selection over competing solutions?

The provided data does not specify the exact IBM technologies inserted. The rationale for selection would typically be detailed in the contract's statement of work and justification documents. Factors influencing selection often include existing agency infrastructure compatibility, specific performance requirements, security mandates, and the perceived value proposition of IBM's offerings compared to alternatives. Without access to these supporting documents, it's impossible to determine the precise technologies or the detailed rationale. However, given the 'Computer and Software Stores' NAICS code, it likely involved hardware components (servers, workstations, networking gear) and associated operating systems or core software applications.

How does the per-unit cost of the technology inserted compare to market rates or similar government procurements at the time of award?

Determining the per-unit cost and comparing it to market rates is not feasible with the provided summary data. The total award amount of $40.8 million is for a broad 'Technology Insertion' and does not break down costs by individual units of hardware or software licenses. To perform such a comparison, one would need itemized pricing from the contract, including quantities and unit prices for specific products (e.g., cost per server, cost per software license). Benchmarking would then involve accessing historical pricing data from similar GSA Schedule contracts, other agency procurements, or commercial price lists from the 2012-2013 timeframe.

What was the historical spending pattern with IBM Technology Insertion contracts by the General Services Administration prior to this award?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending patterns. To analyze historical spending, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending.gov) for all contracts awarded to IBM Technology Insertion (or similar keywords) by the GSA over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract volume, total spending, average award values, and the types of services or products procured. Understanding past spending can help contextualize the significance of this $40.8 million award and identify any shifts in procurement strategy or volume.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this technology insertion, and how was IBM's performance evaluated against them?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, KPIs for technology insertion contracts would focus on aspects like successful installation and integration timelines, system uptime and performance post-insertion, user satisfaction, defect rates, and adherence to security protocols. Performance evaluation would be documented through contract performance reports, acceptance testing results, and potentially contractor performance assessment reporting (CPAR) if applicable. The firm fixed-price nature implies that meeting the defined scope and delivery schedule are primary performance metrics.

Given the 2012 award date, what is the current status of the technologies inserted, and have they been replaced or upgraded?

The contract's period of performance ended on May 31, 2013. Therefore, the technologies inserted under this specific contract are now over a decade old. It is highly probable that these technologies have since been replaced or upgraded through subsequent procurements, as federal IT infrastructure typically undergoes refresh cycles every 3-5 years. Agencies continuously seek to modernize their systems to leverage newer capabilities, enhance security, and improve efficiency. This contract represents a snapshot of IT investment from over ten years ago.

What level of risk is associated with relying on a single vendor like IBM for significant technology insertions, and what mitigation strategies were employed?

Relying on a single vendor like IBM for significant technology insertions can introduce risks such as vendor lock-in, potential for higher costs due to limited competition in follow-on phases, and dependence on the vendor's product lifecycle and support. Mitigation strategies employed by agencies often include negotiating favorable contract terms, ensuring clear exit strategies, requiring interoperability standards, and actively seeking competitive alternatives for future procurements. The initial 'full and open competition' suggests an effort to mitigate initial vendor lock-in, but ongoing vigilance is required.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT (INCLD FIRMWARE) SOFTWARE,SUPPLIES& SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: ID04120127

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6710 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE, BETHESDA, MD, 20817

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $40,804,606

Exercised Options: $40,804,606

Current Obligation: $40,804,606

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F4984H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline