GSA's $53M Non-Competitive Order to Dun & Bradstreet for Credit Bureau Services Raises Value Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,079,378 ($53.1M)

Contractor: DUN & Bradstreet, Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2007-06-18

End Date: 2010-06-10

Contract Duration: 1,088 days

Daily Burn Rate: $48.8K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: DUN & BRADSTREET

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20405

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $53.1 million to DUN & BRADSTREET, INC for work described as: DUN & BRADSTREET Key points: 1. Significant spending on credit bureau services via a non-competitive award. 2. Lack of competition may have led to suboptimal pricing. 3. Potential risk associated with sole-source awards for essential data services. 4. Focus on IT/Data services sector with a history of large contracts.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The award of $53 million for credit bureau services without competition makes a direct pricing assessment difficult. Benchmarking against similar contracts is challenging due to the non-competitive nature, suggesting potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This was a non-competitive delivery order, meaning no other vendors were considered. This lack of competition limits price discovery and potentially inflates costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding for these essential credit bureau services.

Public Impact

Citizens' sensitive financial data is managed by a single vendor. Government reliance on one provider for critical credit information. Potential for increased costs impacting other agency programs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award
High dollar value
Lack of price transparency
Potential for vendor lock-in

Positive Signals

Services likely critical to agency operations
Fixed-price contract provides some cost certainty

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT and Data Services sector, specifically focusing on credit bureau services. Spending benchmarks for similar data services can vary widely, but non-competitive awards often exceed market rates.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded to Dun & Bradstreet, a large corporation, and there is no indication of small business participation. This award does not appear to support small business goals.

Oversight & Accountability

The non-competitive nature of this award warrants scrutiny from oversight bodies. Agencies should justify sole-source awards and ensure fair pricing, even when competition is limited.

Related Government Programs

Credit Bureaus
General Services Administration Contracting
Office of the Administrator Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for overpayment
Limited vendor options
Data security risks with a single provider

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $53.1 million to DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. DUN & BRADSTREET

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DUN & BRADSTREET, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Office of the Administrator).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $53.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-18. End: 2010-06-10.

What was the justification for awarding this contract non-competitively?

The justification for a non-competitive award typically stems from specific circumstances, such as the urgency of the need, the unavailability of other sources, or the unique capabilities of the sole provider. Without detailed documentation, it's difficult to ascertain the precise rationale, but agencies must demonstrate that competition was not feasible or would not be in the government's best interest.

How can the government ensure fair pricing without competition?

Ensuring fair pricing without competition is challenging. Agencies can employ techniques like conducting market research to establish price reasonableness, negotiating aggressively based on historical data or industry benchmarks, and seeking independent cost estimates. However, the inherent lack of competitive pressure means these methods may not achieve the same cost savings as a competitive process.

What is the long-term risk of relying on a single vendor for credit bureau data?

The long-term risk includes potential price escalations as the vendor faces no competitive pressure, reduced service innovation, and vulnerability if the vendor experiences financial distress or data breaches. It also limits the government's ability to leverage new technologies or more cost-effective solutions that might emerge from a competitive market.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Business Support Services › Credit Bureaus

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE DUN & Bradstreet Corporation (UEI: 884114609)

Address: 1700 N MOORE ST STE 1250, ARLINGTON, VA, 22209

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $53,079,378

Exercised Options: $53,079,378

Current Obligation: $53,079,378

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS22F9614D

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline