DHS's $15.4M Adjudications Support Services contract with CMI Management, LLC, awarded in 2008, raises questions about long-term value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,450,662 ($15.5M)

Contractor: CMI Management, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2008-01-14

End Date: 2008-07-29

Contract Duration: 197 days

Daily Burn Rate: $78.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: NOT REPORTED

Sector: Other

Official Description: ADJUDICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 22301

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $15.5 million to CMI MANAGEMENT, LLC for work described as: ADJUDICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded in 2008 for adjudication support services, indicating a long-standing relationship. 2. The contract was awarded under Full and Open Competition, suggesting a competitive process. 3. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms. 4. The contract type is a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), often used for recurring needs. 5. The duration of the contract (197 days) seems short for a service awarded in 2008, suggesting potential modifications or task orders. 6. The specific service description 'Direct Mail Advertising' appears incongruous with 'Adjudications Support Services'.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $15.4 million for adjudication support services, awarded in 2008, is difficult to benchmark without more detailed task order information. The description 'Direct Mail Advertising' for a service labeled 'Adjudications Support Services' is highly unusual and warrants further investigation into the actual services rendered. Given the age of the award and the potential mismatch in descriptions, assessing the value for money is challenging without understanding the specific deliverables and market rates at the time of award and throughout the contract's life.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This suggests a robust competitive process was intended. However, the number of bidders is not reported (0), which is unusual for a full and open competition and raises questions about the effectiveness of the solicitation or the market's response. Without knowing the number of bids received, it's hard to definitively assess the level of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best possible pricing through market forces. However, the lack of reported bidders could mean less competitive pressure than ideal, potentially impacting cost savings.

Public Impact

Citizens and immigrants seeking adjudication services may have indirectly benefited from efficient support processes. The contract aimed to provide support for the adjudication process within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The geographic impact is likely national, given the scope of USCIS operations. Workforce implications could include support staff for administrative and potentially outreach functions related to adjudications.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The discrepancy between the contract name ('Adjudications Support Services') and the service description ('Direct Mail Advertising') is a significant concern, suggesting potential misclassification or a change in scope.
The reported number of bidders (0) for a 'Full and Open Competition' award is highly unusual and raises concerns about the solicitation's effectiveness or market engagement.
The contract was awarded in 2008, and without information on modifications or task orders, it's difficult to assess its continued relevance and value over time.
The lack of specific performance metrics or outcomes makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the services provided.

Positive Signals

The award utilized 'Full and Open Competition,' which is a positive indicator of an attempt to leverage market competition.
The contract was awarded to CMI MANAGEMENT, LLC, suggesting a known entity was selected.
The contract falls under the Department of Homeland Security, an agency with critical national security and immigration functions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically related to administrative and support services. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541860 ('Direct Mail Advertising') is noted, which seems incongruent with 'Adjudications Support Services.' Comparable spending in this broad category can vary widely, but contracts supporting government adjudication processes often involve significant administrative and logistical components. The BPA structure suggests it was intended to fulfill recurring needs for USCIS.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that large businesses were eligible to compete and potentially win the award. Without specific subcontracting plans reported, it is difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem. However, the absence of a small business set-aside suggests that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate in this specific contract may have been limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) contracting officers and program managers. Transparency is limited by the available data, particularly regarding the specific services rendered under the 'Adjudications Support Services' umbrella and the 'Direct Mail Advertising' description. Accountability would stem from adherence to the BPA terms and any subsequent task orders. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

USCIS Adjudication Services
Immigration Processing
Government Support Services
Direct Mail Services
Blanket Purchase Agreements

Risk Flags

Potential Mismatch Between Service Description and Contract Title
Unusually Low Number of Bidders for Full and Open Competition
Contract Awarded in 2008 - Potential for Outdated Services/Pricing
Lack of Detailed Performance Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $15.5 million to CMI MANAGEMENT, LLC. ADJUDICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CMI MANAGEMENT, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-01-14. End: 2008-07-29.

What specific adjudication support services were provided under this contract, and how did they align with the 'Direct Mail Advertising' description?

The provided data lists the service description as 'Direct Mail Advertising' (NAICS 541860) while the contract title is 'ADJUDICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES'. This presents a significant ambiguity. Adjudication support services typically involve assisting in the review and processing of applications, petitions, or claims, which could include data entry, case file management, research, or administrative tasks. Direct mail advertising, conversely, focuses on marketing and outreach through postal services. It is highly probable that the 'Direct Mail Advertising' description is either a misclassification, a very narrow component of the overall support, or the contract evolved significantly from its initial description. Without access to the contract's statement of work, task orders, or modification history, it is impossible to definitively state the services rendered. This discrepancy warrants further investigation to understand the actual function and value of the contract.

What was the total number of bids received for this 'Full and Open Competition' award, and why was it reported as zero?

The data indicates that the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' but reports the number of bidders (no) as 0. This is a highly unusual scenario for a full and open competition, as the intent of such a procurement method is to solicit offers from all responsible sources. A reported zero bidders could imply several possibilities: the solicitation may have been poorly advertised or structured, deterring potential offerors; the market may have lacked sufficient qualified vendors willing to bid; or there might be an error in the data reporting. It is also possible that the solicitation was conducted, but no bids were formally submitted or accepted. This lack of competition, despite the 'Full and Open' designation, raises concerns about the effectiveness of the procurement process and potentially limits the government's ability to secure the most competitive pricing.

Given the contract's award date in 2008, what is its current relevance and how has its value evolved over time?

The contract was awarded on January 14, 2008, with an expiration date of July 29, 2008, and a duration of 197 days. However, the total award amount is $15.4 million. This suggests that the initial award was likely a base period or a specific task order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), which is indeed indicated ('aw': 'BPA'). BPAs are typically established against existing contracts to streamline the purchasing of supplies or services. Without access to the BPA's ceiling, subsequent modifications, or task orders issued against it, assessing its 'current relevance' and 'evolved value' is impossible. The contract could have been extended, modified, or replaced multiple times since 2008. The initial short duration might represent a pilot or a specific need that was later expanded. Further data on the BPA's full lifecycle, including all modifications and task orders, is necessary to understand its ongoing impact and value.

How does the reported award amount of $15.4 million compare to similar adjudication support services contracts awarded around the same period?

Benchmarking the $15.4 million award for 'ADJUDICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES' is challenging without more specific details about the services rendered and the contract's duration or scope. The 'Direct Mail Advertising' description adds further complexity. Contracts for government support services, especially within agencies like DHS/USCIS, can vary significantly in cost based on the complexity of the adjudication process, the volume of cases, and the specific tasks required (e.g., administrative support, data processing, outreach). If the $15.4 million represents the total value over multiple years or task orders under the BPA, it might be reasonable for a large federal agency. However, if it was for the initial short period (197 days), it would be exceptionally high. Comparing it to similar contracts would require identifying contracts with comparable NAICS codes (if 'Direct Mail Advertising' is accurate) or functional descriptions (if 'Adjudications Support Services' is the primary function) and similar award values and durations, ideally from the same agency or for similar government functions.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract awarded in 2008 that may still be active or have had significant modifications?

Contracts awarded in 2008 carry inherent risks due to their age. Key risks include: **Outdated Technology/Services:** The services or technologies procured may no longer be state-of-the-art, leading to inefficiencies or security vulnerabilities. **Scope Creep/Misalignment:** Over time, the contract's scope may drift from its original intent, potentially leading to services not fully aligned with current agency needs or budget constraints. **Pricing Inaccuracies:** Original pricing structures may not reflect current market rates, potentially leading to overpayment or underpayment. **Vendor Lock-in:** Long-term reliance on a single vendor can reduce flexibility and bargaining power. **Data Security:** Older contracts may not meet current stringent data privacy and security requirements, posing risks if sensitive information is handled. **Performance Degradation:** Without regular re-competition or performance reviews, the quality of services might decline. The discrepancy between the service description and title here further amplifies these risks, suggesting a potential lack of clarity and control over the contract's evolution.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Advertising, Public Relations, and Related Services › Direct Mail Advertising

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: NOT REPORTED (NO)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4324 EVERGREEN LN STE B, ANNANDALE, VA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSSCCG05A0047

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline