DHS awards $32.5M+ for management consulting, with significant funding increases over contract life

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,491,335 ($32.5M)

Contractor: DUN & Bradstreet, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2012-09-21

End Date: 2017-09-20

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF THIS PR (AMENDMENT #4) IS ISSUED TO INCREASE FUNDING BY $60,000 OF FY12/13 BUDGET AS INDICATED IN THE FOLLOWING LOAS : AV123A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 $3,539,828.12 AV112A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 $2,847,500.00 TOTAL PR FUNDING: $6,387,328.12 ALL OTHER PROVISIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. KEY POINTS OF CONTACT ROBERT E. MOORE, 571-227-3505, PM/COR VENITA MATHIAS, 571-227-1201, CONTRACTING SPECIALIST, KEVIN ALEXANDER, 571-227-5486, CONTRACTING OFFICER.

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $32.5 million to DUN & BRADSTREET, INC for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF THIS PR (AMENDMENT #4) IS ISSUED TO INCREASE FUNDING BY $60,000 OF FY12/13 BUDGET AS INDICATED IN THE FOLLOWING LOAS : AV123A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 $3,539,828.12 AV112A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 … Key points: 1. Contract value has grown substantially since its initial award, indicating potential scope expansion or evolving needs. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market-driven pricing. 3. A significant portion of the funding was added through amendments, suggesting a need for careful budget management and oversight. 4. The services procured fall under administrative and general management consulting, a broad category with varying value propositions. 5. The contract duration is substantial, spanning over five years, which requires ongoing performance monitoring. 6. The primary agency is DHS, with the Transportation Security Administration as the specific service acquisition.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total obligated amount for this contract is over $32.5 million. Benchmarking this against similar administrative and general management consulting services is challenging without more specific service details. However, the repeated funding increases through amendments suggest that the initial pricing may not have fully captured the evolving scope or that the agency found ongoing value justifying the increased investment. Further analysis would require comparing the specific deliverables and outcomes against industry standards and other government contracts for similar consulting services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating it was likely awarded on a sole-source basis. This approach bypasses the competitive bidding process, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. Without competition, it is difficult to assess if the government received the best possible value or if alternative solutions were overlooked. The lack of competition may be justified if there were unique capabilities or circumstances, but it warrants scrutiny regarding cost-effectiveness.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the price reductions and service enhancements typically achieved through a competitive bidding process. This could result in higher overall costs for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving management consulting services to support its operations. These services likely contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of TSA's administrative and general management functions. The contract's impact is primarily within the federal government's administrative infrastructure, rather than directly on the public. Workforce implications are likely internal to the contractor and potentially within TSA if the consulting involves process improvements or organizational changes.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and missed opportunities for better value.
Significant funding increases via amendments suggest potential scope creep or initial underestimation of costs.
The broad nature of 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' makes it difficult to assess specific value for money without detailed task orders.
Long contract duration necessitates robust oversight to ensure continued relevance and cost-effectiveness.

Positive Signals

The contract has been in place for an extended period, suggesting a sustained need and potentially a stable working relationship.
The agency (DHS) and specific service acquisition (TSA) indicate a focus on critical national security and transportation functions.
The contract is firm fixed price, which generally provides cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically administrative and management consulting. This is a large and diverse market within the federal government, supporting a wide array of agency functions. Spending in this category often supports strategic planning, organizational efficiency, and program management. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific nature of the consulting services provided, but federal spending on management consulting is consistently in the billions annually.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not explicitly provided in the data. As this contract was not competed, it is less likely to have included specific small business subcontracting goals unless mandated by the sole-source justification. Further investigation into the contract's specific terms and conditions would be needed to determine any impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program/contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Transportation Security Administration. The presence of multiple points of contact listed suggests defined roles for management. The Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any concerns regarding waste, fraud, or abuse arise. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the lack of publicly detailed task orders.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security - Management and Consulting Services
Transportation Security Administration - Support Services
Federal Administrative Management Consulting Contracts
Sole-Source Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Significant funding increases via amendments
Broad service category (management consulting)
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $32.5 million to DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. IGF::CT::IGF THIS PR (AMENDMENT #4) IS ISSUED TO INCREASE FUNDING BY $60,000 OF FY12/13 BUDGET AS INDICATED IN THE FOLLOWING LOAS : AV123A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 $3,539,828.12 AV112A000D-2012-ADE040-GE0000-2500-6000-604CGO 6006000000000000 $2,847,500.00 TOTAL PR FUNDING: $6,387,328.12 ALL OTHER PROVISIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. KEY POINTS OF CONTACT ROBERT E. MOORE, 571-227-3505, PM/COR VENITA MATHIAS, 571-227-1201, CONTRACTING SPECIALIST, KEVIN ALEXANDER,

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DUN & BRADSTREET, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-21. End: 2017-09-20.

What was the initial award amount and how has the funding evolved over the contract's life?

The initial award amount is not explicitly stated in the provided data snippet, which focuses on an amendment. However, the data indicates that through Amendment #4, funding was increased by $6,387,328.12, bringing the total obligated amount to $32,491,334.71. This amendment utilized FY12/13 budget funds. The contract's original award date was September 21, 2012, with an end date of September 20, 2017, indicating a five-year period. The significant increase through amendments suggests that the contract's scope or cost estimates were revised substantially after the initial award.

What specific types of administrative and general management consulting services were provided?

The provided data identifies the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 541611, which corresponds to 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services.' This is a broad category that can encompass a wide range of activities, including strategic planning, organizational analysis, process improvement, human capital management, and operational efficiency studies. Without access to the specific task orders or contract line item numbers (CLINs), it is impossible to detail the precise services rendered. These services likely supported various functions within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or the broader Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data explicitly states 'CT: NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source or non-competitive award. Government contracts are typically competed to ensure fair and reasonable pricing and to leverage market competition for the best value. A sole-source award is an exception, usually justified under specific circumstances such as the availability of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or when a follow-on contract is necessary for standardization or compatibility. The specific justification for this contract's sole-source award is not provided in the data snippet and would require further investigation into the contract file or relevant justifications (e.g., J&A - Justification and Approval).

What is the track record of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. as a federal contractor, particularly with DHS?

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. is a well-established company known for providing business data, analytics, and insights. As a federal contractor, they have a history of providing various services, often related to data management, identity verification, and business intelligence. While the provided data snippet focuses on a specific contract with DHS/TSA for management consulting, Dun & Bradstreet's broader federal contracting history would need to be reviewed to assess their overall performance, compliance, and past performance ratings across different agencies and contract types. Their involvement in management consulting, as indicated here, might be a specialized service offering compared to their more commonly known data services.

How does the firm fixed price (FFP) contract type impact cost control and risk for this contract?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally advantageous for the government as it shifts the majority of the cost risk to the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor is obligated to perform the work for a set price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides budget certainty for the agency. However, for complex consulting services where the scope might evolve, an FFP contract can incentivize the contractor to cut corners if costs exceed expectations, or conversely, lead to significant profit if costs are lower than anticipated. The effectiveness of FFP in this context depends on how well the initial scope was defined and the contractor's ability to manage their internal costs effectively.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract (over 5 years) for management consulting?

Long-duration contracts for management consulting, like this one spanning five years (2012-2017), carry several potential risks. Firstly, the relevance of the consulting services may diminish over time as agency needs, technologies, and best practices evolve. Secondly, the initial pricing agreed upon may become uncompetitive or inefficient as market rates change. Thirdly, extended contracts can sometimes lead to complacency or a lack of fresh perspectives from the contractor. Robust oversight, regular performance reviews, and mechanisms for scope adjustments or re-competition are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the continued value and cost-effectiveness of the services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Address: 4350 N FAIRFAX DR STE 650, ARLINGTON, VA, 22203

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $40,311,925

Exercised Options: $32,491,335

Current Obligation: $32,491,335

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline