DHS's $36.7M Uniform Contract for CBP: A Look at Value, Competition, and Performance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,705,585 ($36.7M)

Contractor: VF Imagewear, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2014-12-03

End Date: 2016-01-31

Contract Duration: 424 days

Daily Burn Rate: $86.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: NON-MILITARY UNIFORMS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (STRATEGICALLY SOURCED CONTRACT). THIS ORDER SUPPORTS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) ONLY.

Place of Performance

Location: NASHVILLE, DAVIDSON County, TENNESSEE, 37214

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $36.7 million to VF IMAGEWEAR, INC. for work described as: NON-MILITARY UNIFORMS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (STRATEGICALLY SOURCED CONTRACT). THIS ORDER SUPPORTS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) ONLY. Key points: 1. The contract awarded to VF Image wear, Inc. for non-military uniforms for CBP represents a significant investment in operational readiness. 2. Analysis of pricing and value for money requires benchmarking against similar uniform contracts and market rates for apparel manufacturing. 3. The 'Full and Open Competition' indicates a robust bidding process, potentially leading to better price discovery and value for taxpayers. 4. Performance context is crucial, examining delivery timelines and quality against the contract's duration and CBP's operational needs. 5. Sector positioning within 'Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing' highlights the specialized nature of this procurement. 6. Risk indicators may include potential supply chain disruptions, material cost fluctuations, and adherence to delivery schedules.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the $36.7 million contract value against similar large-scale uniform procurements for federal agencies is essential to assess value for money. Without specific comparable data on per-unit costs for the exact types of uniforms and materials, a definitive value assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the price was competitive. The duration of the contract (424 days) also needs to be considered in relation to the volume of uniforms ordered to gauge efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This level of competition is generally favorable as it encourages vendors to offer their best pricing and terms to secure the award. The number of bidders and the specifics of the evaluation process would provide further insight into the intensity of the competition and its impact on the final price.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through competitive bidding, ensuring that the government receives the best possible value for its expenditure on essential items like uniforms.

Public Impact

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, who are the primary end-users, benefit from receiving standardized and appropriate attire for their duties. The contract delivers essential non-military uniform items, contributing to the operational effectiveness and professional appearance of CBP personnel. The geographic impact is nationwide, as CBP operates across all U.S. borders and within the country. Workforce implications include ensuring that CBP agents are properly equipped, which can impact morale and operational readiness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for delays in delivery impacting CBP operational readiness if the contractor faces production or supply chain issues.
Risk of material cost fluctuations impacting the fixed-price contract if not adequately hedged by the contractor.
Ensuring consistent quality across all uniform items delivered over the contract period.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Supports a critical law enforcement agency (CBP) with essential operational equipment.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls within the 'Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing' sector (NAICS 315990). This sector encompasses establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing clothing and clothing accessories. Large government contracts for uniforms are common within this sector, often awarded through competitive processes to specialized manufacturers. Benchmarking this contract's value against other federal uniform procurements would provide context on the scale and pricing within this specific market segment.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the scale of the award ($36.7 million), it is likely that the prime contractor, VF Image wear, Inc., is a large business. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist within the supply chain for raw materials or specific components, but this is not explicitly detailed. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent of any subcontracting efforts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring contractor performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and approving payments. Transparency is generally 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 (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Apparel
Other Federal Agency Uniform Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions impacting delivery timelines.
Risk of material cost volatility affecting fixed-price contract profitability.
Need for robust quality control to ensure uniform standards are met.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $36.7 million to VF IMAGEWEAR, INC.. NON-MILITARY UNIFORMS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (STRATEGICALLY SOURCED CONTRACT). THIS ORDER SUPPORTS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) ONLY.

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 $36.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-12-03. End: 2016-01-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for non-military uniforms by the Department of Homeland Security, specifically for Customs and Border Protection?

Analyzing historical spending data for DHS and CBP on non-military uniforms is crucial for understanding trends and establishing spending baselines. Without access to specific historical contract databases beyond this single award, it's difficult to provide a precise pattern. However, federal agencies typically procure uniforms on a recurring basis to equip their personnel. The $36.7 million awarded to VF Image wear, Inc. for a period of approximately 1.5 years (December 2014 - January 2016) suggests a significant, but potentially episodic, procurement cycle. Understanding the frequency and value of previous awards would help determine if this contract represents a typical expenditure or an outlier. Factors such as changes in CBP staffing levels, policy updates regarding uniform requirements, and the introduction of new uniform items could influence historical spending.

How does the per-unit cost of uniforms under this contract compare to industry benchmarks or similar government contracts?

A detailed comparison of per-unit costs requires specific data on the types of uniforms (e.g., shirts, pants, jackets), materials, and quantities ordered under this contract, which are not fully provided. However, the 'Full and Open Competition' award to VF Image wear, Inc. for $36.7 million suggests that the pricing was deemed competitive at the time of award. To perform a robust benchmark, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar uniform items procured by other federal agencies or large state/local law enforcement entities. Factors such as fabric quality, manufacturing location, and specific design features significantly influence per-unit costs. Without this granular data, assessing whether the pricing represents excellent, good, or fair value remains speculative, though the competitive nature of the award is a positive indicator.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate VF Image wear, Inc.'s performance on this contract, and how did they perform?

Key performance indicators for uniform contracts typically revolve around on-time delivery, quality of materials and workmanship, adherence to specifications, and responsiveness to inquiries or issues. For this specific contract, performance would be measured against the delivery schedule (December 2014 - January 2016) and the detailed uniform specifications outlined in the contract. While the provided data doesn't include performance reports, the fact that the contract was awarded and presumably fulfilled without major reported issues suggests satisfactory performance. A thorough review would involve examining delivery records, quality inspection reports, and any formal performance evaluations or contractor feedback mechanisms employed by CBP or DHS.

What is the track record of VF Image wear, Inc. in fulfilling large federal contracts, particularly for apparel or uniforms?

VF Image wear, Inc. is a known entity in the apparel manufacturing sector, and its track record with federal contracts, especially for uniforms, is generally established. As a significant player, they likely have experience managing large-scale production and delivery for government clients. To assess their specific track record for this contract, one would look into past performance evaluations, any history of contract disputes, on-time delivery rates, and quality compliance on previous similar awards. A positive performance history with other agencies, particularly for law enforcement or military uniforms, would lend confidence to their ability to meet CBP's requirements. Conversely, any documented performance issues could raise concerns about reliability.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source or limited competition contract for essential items like uniforms?

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' so the risks associated with sole-source or limited competition are not directly applicable here. However, if it *had* been sole-source or limited, potential risks would include higher prices due to lack of competitive pressure, reduced innovation, and a greater reliance on a single supplier, which could lead to supply chain vulnerabilities. For essential items like uniforms, a lack of competition could also mean less flexibility in adapting to changing needs or specifications. Taxpayers would be at risk of paying a premium without the assurance that the best value was obtained. The current contract's competitive nature mitigates these specific risks.

How does the strategic sourcing approach mentioned in the data impact the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this uniform procurement?

The mention of 'Strategically Sourced Contract' suggests that this procurement was part of a broader initiative by DHS to consolidate and optimize its spending on common goods and services. Strategic sourcing typically involves analyzing spending patterns, market research, and leveraging purchasing power to negotiate better terms and prices. For uniforms, this could mean establishing long-term agreements with pre-qualified vendors like VF Image wear, Inc. through a competitive process, aiming for economies of scale and standardized specifications. The impact on efficiency and cost-effectiveness is generally positive, as it can reduce administrative burden, improve consistency, and potentially secure lower unit prices compared to numerous individual, uncoordinated procurements.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CLOTHING, INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT, INSIGNA, AND JEWELRY

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: V.F. Corporation (UEI: 002344208)

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: $36,705,585

Exercised Options: $36,705,585

Current Obligation: $36,705,585

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSBP1014D00034

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline