DHS awarded $35.6M for uniform items, with VF ImageWear Inc. securing the contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,651,288 ($35.7M)

Contractor: VF Imagewear, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2013-12-06

End Date: 2015-01-30

Contract Duration: 420 days

Daily Burn Rate: $84.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: UNIFORM ITEMS AND SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: HENNING, LAUDERDALE County, TENNESSEE, 38041

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $35.7 million to VF IMAGEWEAR, INC. for work described as: UNIFORM ITEMS AND SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract value of $35.6 million represents a significant investment in uniform items and services. 2. VF ImageWear, Inc. was the awarded contractor, indicating a specific market player's success. 3. The contract duration of 420 days suggests a medium-term need for these supplies. 4. The award was made under a full and open competition, implying a broad market solicitation. 5. The fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 6. The contract falls under the Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract requires more granular data on the specific uniform items and quantities procured. However, the total award of $35.6 million for a period of approximately 14 months indicates a substantial procurement. Without specific unit costs or comparisons to similar large-scale uniform procurements by other agencies, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost control, but the overall efficiency depends on the negotiated unit prices and the actual need for the items.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The fact that there were 2 bids received suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery and ensuring fair access to government contracts, the low number of bids could indicate potential barriers to entry for other firms or a highly specialized market.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally leads to better pricing for taxpayers compared to sole-source awards. It ensures that the government receives proposals from multiple vendors, fostering a more efficient market for uniform supplies.

Public Impact

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and personnel will benefit from the provision of necessary uniform items. The services delivered include the supply of apparel accessories and other apparel. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting CBP operations across various locations. The contract supports jobs within the apparel manufacturing sector, specifically for the awarded contractor and its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for overstocking or obsolescence if demand forecasts are inaccurate.
Reliance on a single contractor for a critical supply chain element.
Quality control challenges in ensuring consistent product standards across all items.

Positive Signals

Clear contract terms and fixed pricing provide budget predictability.
Full and open competition, even with few bidders, aims for market-driven pricing.
Award to a known entity (VF ImageWear) may suggest established quality and delivery capabilities.

Sector Analysis

The apparel manufacturing sector is a mature industry with established players. This contract falls within the broader category of government procurement for essential operational supplies. The market for uniform and apparel manufacturing is competitive, with companies often specializing in government contracts. Benchmarking this spending would involve comparing it to other large federal uniform procurements, which can vary significantly based on the agency, quantity, and specific item requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless VF ImageWear has a robust small business subcontracting plan that is not detailed here. Further investigation into subcontracting would be needed to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection contracting officer and their representatives. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including delivery schedules, quality standards, and payment terms. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Uniform Procurement
General Services Administration Schedules - Apparel
Federal Prison Industries - Apparel Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Low number of bids received.
Potential for quality issues if contractor faces cost overruns.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting details.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $35.7 million to VF IMAGEWEAR, INC.. UNIFORM ITEMS AND SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VF IMAGEWEAR, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Customs and Border Protection).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-12-06. End: 2015-01-30.

What specific types of uniform items were included in this $35.6 million contract?

The provided data categorizes this procurement under 'UNIFORM ITEMS AND SERVICES' and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 315990, which pertains to 'Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing.' While the specific item list is not detailed, this typically includes items such as shirts, pants, jackets, headwear, and accessories necessary for the uniforms of federal agents and personnel. The broad nature of the NAICS code suggests a comprehensive range of apparel rather than a single item. Further details would be available in the contract's statement of work or line item details.

How does the number of bids (2) compare to typical competition levels for similar federal uniform contracts?

Receiving only two bids for a contract valued at $35.6 million, even under full and open competition, can be considered a relatively low number. Typical competition levels for large federal procurements can range from a handful of bids to dozens, depending on the market's size, the specificity of the requirement, and the perceived profitability or accessibility of the contract. A low number of bidders might suggest that the market for these specific uniform items is concentrated among a few large suppliers, or that the barriers to entry (e.g., manufacturing capacity, specialized certifications) are high. This could potentially limit price competition and negotiating leverage for the government.

What is the track record of VF ImageWear, Inc. in fulfilling federal uniform contracts?

VF ImageWear, Inc. is a known entity in the apparel industry and has a history of supplying uniforms and related products to various government agencies. As a subsidiary of VF Corporation, it possesses significant manufacturing and distribution capabilities. While specific performance metrics for this particular contract (awarded in 2013 and ending in 2015) are not detailed in the summary data, VF ImageWear has generally been a significant player in the federal uniform market. Their track record would typically involve assessing on-time delivery, product quality, and adherence to contract specifications across their portfolio of government contracts.

Can the $35.6 million spending be benchmarked against other federal agencies' uniform procurement?

Benchmarking this $35.6 million contract requires comparing it to similar procurements by agencies with comparable needs, such as the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DOJ), or other components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For instance, the DoD procures vast quantities of uniforms annually, often through multi-year, multi-billion dollar contracts. However, the specific items, quantities, and quality standards can differ significantly. A direct comparison would necessitate identifying contracts for similar types of apparel (e.g., law enforcement uniforms vs. military combat uniforms) and similar contract durations. Without such specific comparable data, the $35.6 million figure serves as a standalone indicator of DHS's investment in this area.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract for uniform items?

Fixed-price contracts, while offering cost certainty to the government, carry risks primarily for the contractor. For the government, the main risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or service to maintain profitability if costs escalate unexpectedly. In the context of uniform items, this could manifest as lower-quality materials, defects in manufacturing, or delays in delivery if the contractor underestimated production costs or faced supply chain disruptions. However, for a well-established contractor like VF ImageWear, with experience in this market, the risk of significant quality compromise might be mitigated by their reputation and existing quality control processes. The government's risk is also managed through contract clauses related to inspection, acceptance, and remedies for non-performance.

What does the contract's end date (January 30, 2015) imply about current uniform needs for CBP?

The contract's end date of January 30, 2015, indicates that this specific procurement vehicle for uniform items and services concluded at that time. It implies that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would have needed to establish new contracts or solicitations to meet their ongoing uniform requirements beyond that date. Federal agencies regularly re-compete contracts as they expire to ensure they are obtaining the best value and to adapt to evolving needs or market conditions. Therefore, this contract represents a historical procurement and does not reflect CBP's current uniform supply arrangements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing › Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TEXTILE/LEATHER/FUR; TENT; FLAG

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: V.F. Corporation

Address: 545 MARRIOTT DRIVE STE 200, NASHVILLE, TN, 37214

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $46,979,228

Exercised Options: $39,226,515

Current Obligation: $35,651,288

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSBP1014D00001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline