DHS Coast Guard's $6.2M IGF Purchase Card Support Services contract awarded to Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,218,867 ($6.2M)

Contractor: Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2017-09-29

End Date: 2022-09-28

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20593

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $6.2 million to SOLUTIONS THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 5 years (1825 days) indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs by establishing a set price for services. 4. The award was a delivery order, implying it was part of a larger contract vehicle. 5. The primary NAICS code (541330) points to engineering services, though the description is 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES'. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the services provided under 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES'. The total value of $6.2 million over five years averages to approximately $1.24 million annually. This figure needs to be compared against the scope and complexity of the support provided, as well as the market rates for similar administrative or technical support services within the federal government. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to manage costs, but the overall value-for-money assessment depends heavily on the performance and efficiency of the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which typically means the solicitation was broadly advertised, but specific sources may have been excluded based on defined criteria. The presence of 4 bidders indicates a degree of competition. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation to understand if it limited the competitive landscape unnecessarily. A full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select the best value offer.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award, despite potential source exclusions, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. The government had multiple offers to choose from, driving down costs.

Public Impact

The U.S. Coast Guard benefits from the continuity of support for its Integrated Government Financial (IGF) purchase card program. Services provided likely ensure the efficient and compliant operation of the government purchase card system. The contract supports administrative and potentially technical functions related to financial management. The geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the contractor is located. The contract supports the operational readiness and financial management of the Coast Guard.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The description 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES' is vague and does not clearly define the scope of engineering services (NAICS 541330).
The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type could have limited the number of potential bidders.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess contractor performance and value.
The contract duration of five years may not align with evolving technological needs or budget cycles.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating an effort to maximize bidder participation.
The contract is firm-fixed-price, which helps in cost control and predictability.
The contract was awarded to a single vendor, suggesting a focused relationship for specific support needs.
The duration of the contract (5 years) provides stability for essential support services.

Sector Analysis

The Information Technology and Engineering Services sector is vast, with federal spending on IT services alone reaching billions annually. This contract, categorized under Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) but described as purchase card support, falls into a niche area of administrative and financial support services that are crucial for government operations. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar support services would depend on the specific tasks performed, such as system administration, data analysis, or process improvement, which are not fully detailed here. The federal government relies heavily on contractors for specialized support functions across various agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc., is not a small business for the purpose of this contract. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. Without specific set-aside goals or subcontracting requirements, the direct impact on small businesses is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the U.S. Coast Guard's contracting and program management offices within the Department of Homeland Security. Accountability measures are generally embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported concerning the contract's execution or the services rendered.

Related Government Programs

Government Purchase Card Programs
Financial Management Systems Support
IT Support Services
Engineering Consulting Services
Department of Homeland Security Contracts
U.S. Coast Guard Operations

Risk Flags

Vague service description
Potential limitation of competition due to source exclusion
Lack of publicly available performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $6.2 million to SOLUTIONS THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC. IGF::OT::IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SOLUTIONS THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-29. End: 2022-09-28.

What specific services are included under 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES' for the U.S. Coast Guard, and how do they align with the NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services)?

The description 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES' is notably vague and does not clearly delineate the specific tasks performed by Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc. The assigned NAICS code, 541330, typically pertains to Engineering Services, which can encompass a wide range of activities including design, consulting, and project management related to physical infrastructure or systems. However, 'purchase card support services' usually implies administrative, technical, or analytical functions related to managing government credit card programs, such as transaction monitoring, reconciliation, policy development, training, or system maintenance. The discrepancy suggests either a broad interpretation of 'engineering services' by the agency or a misclassification of the contract's primary function. Without a more detailed statement of work, it is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the services and their alignment with the engineering services classification. This ambiguity could potentially obscure the true cost drivers and value proposition of the contract.

How does the pricing of this $6.2 million contract compare to similar government contracts for purchase card support or administrative services?

A direct comparison of the pricing for this $6.2 million contract, awarded over five years, to similar government contracts is challenging without a detailed breakdown of the services rendered and the specific labor categories or deliverables. The average annual value of approximately $1.24 million needs to be benchmarked against contracts with comparable scope, complexity, and duration. Factors such as the number of users supported, the volume of transactions processed, the level of system integration, and the specific support functions (e.g., help desk, data analytics, compliance monitoring) significantly influence pricing. Generally, federal agencies aim for competitive pricing through full and open competition. However, without access to the specific bid data or a detailed statement of work, it's difficult to definitively assess whether this contract represents excellent, good, or fair value relative to market rates or other federal procurements.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success and effectiveness of Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc. under this contract?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance metrics established for this contract. In a well-managed federal contract, KPIs are crucial for assessing contractor performance, ensuring value for money, and holding the vendor accountable. For a contract described as 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES,' potential KPIs could include metrics related to transaction processing accuracy, response times for user support, compliance adherence rates, system uptime, and the efficiency of cardholder reconciliation processes. The absence of this information in the summary data suggests that either these KPIs are not publicly disclosed, or they were not explicitly detailed in the contract award notice. A thorough review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and any associated Performance Work Statement (PWS) would be necessary to identify the agreed-upon performance standards and measurement criteria.

What is the track record of Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc. in performing similar government contracts, particularly within the Department of Homeland Security?

Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, including those with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). To assess their track record for this specific type of service, one would need to examine past performance evaluations and contract history. This includes looking at the successful completion of previous contracts, any documented performance issues, contract modifications, and overall client satisfaction ratings. Information on past performance is often available through federal procurement databases and past performance questionnaires submitted by government contracting officers. A review of their portfolio would reveal their experience in providing administrative, technical, or financial support services, and whether they have successfully managed contracts of similar size and duration. Without this specific historical data, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of their capabilities for this particular contract.

Given the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type, what potential impact did the exclusion of certain sources have on the overall competition and taxpayer value?

The award type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that while the solicitation was broadly advertised, specific potential offerors were intentionally excluded based on predefined criteria. The impact of this exclusion on competition and taxpayer value is nuanced. On one hand, it suggests the government had specific requirements that not all potential vendors could meet, potentially leading to a more focused competition among qualified entities. This could result in a technically superior solution. On the other hand, if the exclusion criteria were overly restrictive or not well-justified, it could have artificially limited the number of bidders, potentially reducing price competition and leading to a higher cost for taxpayers than if a truly unrestricted competition had occurred. The number of bidders (4) suggests some level of competition was maintained, but the rationale behind the source exclusion is critical to understanding the full impact on value.

How does the $6.2 million spending on 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES' fit into the broader context of the U.S. Coast Guard's overall IT or administrative support budget?

The $6.2 million allocated to 'IGF PURCHASE CARD SUPPORT SERVICES' represents a specific expenditure within the U.S. Coast Guard's broader financial operations. To contextualize this spending, it needs to be compared against the total budget for IT services, administrative support, or financial management systems within the Coast Guard. Federal agencies typically allocate significant portions of their budgets to these areas to ensure operational efficiency and compliance. For instance, if the Coast Guard's annual IT budget is in the hundreds of millions or billions, $6.2 million for a specific support function might represent a relatively small but critical component. Conversely, if it constitutes a substantial portion of a smaller administrative budget, it warrants closer scrutiny. Understanding the proportion this contract represents relative to the overall agency spending on similar functions is key to assessing its significance and potential impact.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3152 PRESIDENTIAL DR, FAIRBORN, OH, 45324

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,316,391

Exercised Options: $6,218,867

Current Obligation: $6,218,867

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $1,750,137

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADS139

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline