DHS awards $31M laptop refresh contract to Wildflower International, Ltd. for 14 units

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,967,434 ($31.0M)

Contractor: Wildflower International, Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2015-09-30

End Date: 2016-11-30

Contract Duration: 427 days

Daily Burn Rate: $72.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: LAPTOP REFRESH

Place of Performance

Location: SANTA FE, SANTA FE County, NEW MEXICO, 87505

State: New Mexico Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $31.0 million to WILDFLOWER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. for work described as: LAPTOP REFRESH Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to the number of units procured, suggesting potential inefficiencies or a focus on specialized hardware. 2. Competition was full and open, indicating a broad market search, but the low number of units raises questions about the scale of the opportunity. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which is generally positive for the government. 4. Performance occurred over a 14-month period, suggesting a relatively short-term refresh cycle. 5. The procurement falls within the electronic computer manufacturing sector, a common area for government IT needs. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, implying it was part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract awarded $30,967,433.59 for 14 laptops, resulting in a per-unit cost of approximately $2,211,959.54. This price is extraordinarily high when compared to standard commercial laptop prices, which typically range from $500 to $2,500 for high-end models. Even considering enterprise-grade features, specialized security requirements, or extensive support packages, this unit cost is anomalous. It suggests that the 'laptops' may be highly specialized devices, or there are significant non-hardware costs bundled into this figure, such as software, integration, or extensive training. Without further clarification on the nature of these devices and associated services, the value for money appears questionable.

Cost Per Unit: Approximately $2,211,959.54 per unit, significantly above market rates for standard computing hardware.

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach is generally favored for maximizing competition and achieving the best possible prices. However, the extremely high per-unit cost, despite the open competition, suggests that either the market for these specific devices is very limited, or the solicitation may have included requirements that inadvertently restricted the pool of potential bidders or inflated the perceived value. The number of bidders (14) is a positive signal of interest, but the outcome warrants scrutiny.

Taxpayer Impact: While open competition is beneficial for taxpayers by encouraging multiple bids, the exceptionally high unit price in this instance suggests that the competitive process did not translate into cost savings. Taxpayers may have overpaid significantly for the procured items, indicating a potential disconnect between the competitive process and the final pricing outcome.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely personnel within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), who received the refreshed computing equipment. The service delivered is the provision of 14 laptop computers, presumably for operational use by TSA staff. The geographic impact is localized to the operational areas where these 14 laptops are deployed by the TSA. Workforce implications are minimal, affecting only the 14 end-users of the laptops and potentially IT support staff involved in deployment and maintenance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Extremely high per-unit cost raises concerns about budget efficiency and potential overspending.
The discrepancy between the number of units and the total award value suggests potential bundling of services or highly specialized, expensive hardware.
Lack of detailed justification for the unit cost makes it difficult to assess the true value proposition.
The contract duration of 427 days for only 14 units seems protracted, potentially indicating slow deployment or extended service periods.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified vendors.
The firm-fixed-price contract type effectively transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
A relatively large number of bidders (14) participated, suggesting market interest in the opportunity.
The procurement falls under a standard NAICS code for electronic computer manufacturing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically the manufacturing and supply of electronic computing devices. The broader IT hardware market is characterized by rapid technological advancements, intense competition, and fluctuating price points. Government procurements in this space often involve specialized configurations, extended warranties, and security hardening that can increase costs compared to commercial off-the-shelf products. Benchmarking this contract is challenging due to the extreme unit cost, but typical government laptop refresh contracts for standard enterprise models would likely fall in the $1,000-$2,500 per unit range, excluding highly specialized equipment.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by the 'sb' field being false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. Given the nature of the procurement (high-value, specialized hardware), it is possible that the primary contractor is a large business. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Wildflower International, Ltd. engages small businesses for subcontracting work, which is not detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the contracting agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and specifically the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). As a delivery order under a larger contract, oversight might be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) responsible for monitoring performance and delivery. Transparency is limited by the provided data; while the award is public, the detailed justification for the exceptionally high unit cost is not readily available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule IT Hardware
Department of Defense (DoD) IT Procurement
Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) Compliance
Cybersecurity Equipment Procurement
Enterprise Laptop Refresh Programs

Risk Flags

Unusually High Unit Cost
Potential Lack of Value for Money
Lack of Detailed Justification for Cost
Specialized Equipment vs. Standard Laptops

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $31.0 million to WILDFLOWER INTERNATIONAL, LTD.. LAPTOP REFRESH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WILDFLOWER INTERNATIONAL, LTD..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-30. End: 2016-11-30.

What specific features or services justify the extremely high per-unit cost of approximately $2.2 million per laptop?

The provided data does not specify the exact features or services that justify the per-unit cost of approximately $2,211,959.54. Standard commercial laptops range from hundreds to a few thousand dollars. This astronomical figure suggests the 'laptops' may be highly specialized, custom-built computing devices with unique security, processing, or operational capabilities tailored for sensitive government functions. Alternatively, the cost could include significant bundled services such as extensive software licenses, integration with complex systems, long-term maintenance agreements, specialized training, or deployment across a wide geographic area with significant logistical support. Without a detailed breakdown from the contracting agency (DHS/TSA), it is impossible to ascertain the precise drivers of this cost. It is crucial to investigate whether these are indeed 'laptops' in the conventional sense or a different class of specialized equipment.

How does the $30.9 million award for 14 laptops compare to similar federal procurements for computing hardware?

This award is an extreme outlier when compared to typical federal procurements for computing hardware. Standard enterprise laptops procured by federal agencies, even those with enhanced security features and support contracts, generally cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per unit. For example, recent large-scale laptop refresh contracts by agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Social Security Administration have shown average unit costs well within this range. The $2.2 million per unit cost for this DHS contract is orders of magnitude higher. This suggests that the items procured were not standard laptops but likely highly specialized, mission-critical equipment, or that the contract included substantial non-hardware related costs that were bundled into the per-unit price. A direct comparison to typical laptop procurements is therefore misleading without further context on the nature of the equipment.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, given the high unit cost and limited quantity?

The primary risk is financial waste and poor value for taxpayer money due to the extraordinarily high per-unit cost. The significant discrepancy between the cost and the number of units (14) raises concerns about potential overpricing, inefficient procurement practices, or the acquisition of highly specialized, perhaps unnecessary, equipment. There is a risk that the government is paying a premium for capabilities it does not fully require or that a more cost-effective solution could have been identified. Another risk is the lack of transparency; the high unit cost makes it difficult to scrutinize the procurement's justification and ensure accountability. Furthermore, if these are indeed specialized devices, there's a risk of vendor lock-in and difficulty in future upgrades or replacements if the technology is not widely supported.

What does the 'full and open competition' designation mean in the context of this contract's outcome?

The designation 'full and open competition' means that the Department of Homeland Security allowed all eligible and responsible sources to submit bids for this contract. This is generally a positive indicator, suggesting the agency sought the widest possible market to ensure fair pricing and access to the best available solutions. In this specific case, 14 vendors submitted offers, demonstrating significant market interest. However, the outcome—an extremely high per-unit cost—raises questions about whether the competitive process effectively translated into cost savings for the government. It could imply that the requirements were so specialized that only a few vendors could meet them, or that the solicitation itself, despite being open, led bidders to propose very high prices, possibly due to perceived risks or unique specifications. The competition level indicates a broad search, but the price outcome suggests potential issues with price discovery or the nature of the requirement.

What is the track record of Wildflower International, Ltd. in fulfilling federal contracts, particularly for IT hardware?

Information regarding the specific track record of Wildflower International, Ltd. in fulfilling federal contracts, especially for IT hardware, is not provided in the data snippet. To assess their reliability and past performance, one would need to consult federal procurement databases like SAM.gov (System for Award Management) or FPDS (Federal Procurement Data System) to review their contract history, past performance evaluations, and any reported issues or successes. Without this external data, it's impossible to comment on their track record. However, the significant award amount and the unusual nature of this specific contract might warrant a closer look at their history if they are not a well-established IT hardware provider.

What are the potential implications of the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type for this procurement?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government, especially in procurements where the scope of work is well-defined and risks can be reasonably estimated. Under an FFP contract, the contractor agrees to a set price for the specified goods or services, and assumes the responsibility for any cost overruns. This shifts the financial risk from the government to the contractor. For this laptop refresh contract, the FFP structure means that Wildflower International, Ltd. is obligated to deliver the 14 laptops for the agreed-upon total price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides cost certainty for the Department of Homeland Security. The primary implication is that the government has locked in its cost, and any potential inefficiencies or unexpected cost increases experienced by the contractor will impact their profit margin, not the government's expenditure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing › Electronic Computer Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT (INCLD FIRMWARE) SOFTWARE,SUPPLIES& SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1500 S SAINT FRANCIS DR, SANTA FE, NM, 87505

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,967,464

Exercised Options: $30,967,434

Current Obligation: $30,967,434

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSTS0311DCIO314

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline