HUD's $16.2M contract for manufactured housing oversight awarded to Institute for Building Technology and Safety

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,207,171 ($16.2M)

Contractor: Institute for Building Technology and Safety

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2007-07-27

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,987 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MANUFACTURED HOUSING MONITORING OF PRODUCTION PRIMARY INSPECTION AGENCIES (IPIA) DEIGN APPROVAL PRIMARY INSPEC. AGENCIES (DAPIA)&STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES (SAA)

Place of Performance

Location: ASHBURN, LOUDOUN County, VIRGINIA, 20147

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $16.2 million to INSTITUTE FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY for work described as: MANUFACTURED HOUSING MONITORING OF PRODUCTION PRIMARY INSPECTION AGENCIES (IPIA) DEIGN APPROVAL PRIMARY INSPEC. AGENCIES (DAPIA)&STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES (SAA) Key points: 1. The contract focuses on critical regulatory functions for manufactured housing safety and compliance. 2. Competition was robust, indicating potential for good value, though specific performance metrics are not detailed. 3. The duration of the contract (nearly 8 years) suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) allows for flexibility but requires careful cost management. 5. The agency's reliance on a single contractor for this specific function warrants scrutiny of performance and cost. 6. Geographic scope appears national, covering all states requiring manufactured housing oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance data or comparable contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates if not managed tightly. However, the fixed fee component provides some predictability. The total award amount over nearly eight years averages to approximately $2 million annually, which may be reasonable for a national regulatory oversight program, but a detailed cost breakdown and comparison to similar agency functions would be necessary for a definitive assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to compete. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The fact that the Institute for Building Technology and Safety was selected implies they offered the best value among the competing entities. Further details on the number of bids received would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging innovation among contractors, leading to more efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

Consumers of manufactured housing benefit from increased safety and quality assurance through the oversight of production and inspection agencies. The contract supports the Department of Housing and Urban Development's mission to ensure compliance with federal manufactured housing standards. The services delivered ensure that primary inspection agencies and state administrative agencies meet federal requirements for approving manufacturers. The geographic impact is national, covering all states that adopt HUD's manufactured housing program or have their own approved state programs. The contract supports a specialized workforce involved in inspection, regulation, and building technology assessment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can incentivize contractors to increase costs to achieve a higher fixed fee if not properly managed.
The long contract duration without clear performance metrics could lead to complacency or reduced efficiency over time.
Lack of specific details on the number of bidders in the full and open competition makes it difficult to fully assess the competitive pressure on pricing.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The contract addresses a critical regulatory function vital for public safety in the manufactured housing sector.
The contractor, Institute for Building Technology and Safety, likely possesses specialized expertise in building codes and inspection.

Sector Analysis

The manufactured housing industry is a significant segment of the U.S. housing market, providing affordable housing options. Federal oversight, primarily through HUD, is crucial for ensuring safety and quality standards, as these homes are built in factories and then transported to their final locations. This contract falls within the regulatory and inspection services sector, supporting the government's role in market oversight. Comparable spending might include other federal contracts for building code enforcement, product certification, or safety inspections across various industries.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and there was no specific small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and the prime contractor is likely a larger entity. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not detailed in this summary, but typically, larger prime contracts may include provisions for small business subcontracting goals, which would need to be verified through the contract's specific terms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight of this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, HUD would be responsible for monitoring the contractor's costs to ensure they are reasonable and allowable, and that the fixed fee is earned. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of contract spending and performance reviews. The Inspector General for HUD would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards
Federal Manufactured Housing Program
State Administrative Agencies (SAA) Oversight
Primary Inspection Agencies (PIA) Oversight
Building Code Enforcement

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Need for robust oversight to ensure cost reasonableness.
Long contract duration may require performance reassessment.
Limited public data on specific performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $16.2 million to INSTITUTE FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY. MANUFACTURED HOUSING MONITORING OF PRODUCTION PRIMARY INSPECTION AGENCIES (IPIA) DEIGN APPROVAL PRIMARY INSPEC. AGENCIES (DAPIA)&STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES (SAA)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INSTITUTE FOR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department of Housing and Urban Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-27. End: 2015-09-30.

What is the track record of the Institute for Building Technology and Safety with HUD or similar agencies?

The Institute for Building Technology and Safety (IBTS) has a significant history of working with government agencies, including HUD, on building code compliance, inspection services, and regulatory support. They are known for their expertise in construction, engineering, and regulatory affairs. IBTS has been involved in various aspects of manufactured housing oversight, often acting as a third-party inspection agency or providing technical assistance. Their long-standing relationship with HUD, as evidenced by this contract spanning nearly eight years, suggests a level of established performance and trust. However, a comprehensive review would involve examining specific past performance evaluations, any documented issues or disputes, and their success in meeting contractual obligations on previous projects.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar federal regulatory oversight programs?

The contract's total value of approximately $16.2 million over roughly 8 years equates to an average annual expenditure of about $2 million. Comparing this to similar federal regulatory oversight programs is difficult without more specific data on the scope and complexity of those programs. However, for a national program involving the inspection and monitoring of manufactured housing production and primary inspection agencies, this annual figure may be within a reasonable range. For context, other federal agencies overseeing product safety or industry standards might have annual budgets ranging from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars, depending on the sector's size and risk profile. A more precise comparison would require identifying contracts with similar functions, geographic reach, and regulatory responsibilities.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for regulatory oversight?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, like this one for manufactured housing oversight, is the potential for cost overruns. While the fixed fee provides the contractor with a set profit margin, the 'cost plus' portion means the government reimburses the contractor's allowable costs. If the contractor is not diligent in managing expenses, or if unforeseen circumstances drive up costs, the total expenditure for the government can exceed initial projections. This necessitates robust oversight from the contracting agency (HUD) to scrutinize all claimed costs, ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable according to the contract terms. Another risk is that the contractor might be less incentivized to find cost efficiencies compared to a fixed-price contract, as their profit is fixed regardless of how efficiently they manage costs.

How effective has the Institute for Building Technology and Safety been in ensuring manufactured housing safety under this contract?

Assessing the effectiveness of IBTS in ensuring manufactured housing safety under this specific contract requires access to performance reports, inspection data, and compliance metrics that are not publicly detailed in the provided summary. However, the renewal or continuation of such a long-term contract by HUD generally implies a satisfactory level of performance. Effective oversight would typically involve tracking the number of inspections conducted, the types and severity of violations found, the timeliness of corrective actions, and the overall compliance rates of the inspected agencies and manufacturers. Without these specific performance indicators, a definitive judgment on effectiveness cannot be made, but the sustained engagement suggests IBTS has met HUD's baseline expectations for regulatory functions.

What are the historical spending patterns for manufactured housing oversight by HUD?

Historical spending patterns for HUD's manufactured housing oversight, prior to or concurrent with this $16.2 million contract (2007-2015), would likely show a consistent need for regulatory functions. Federal agencies responsible for public safety and consumer protection typically maintain ongoing programs. The total amount awarded over nearly eight years suggests an average annual commitment. To understand broader patterns, one would need to examine spending across previous contract vehicles, task orders, and potentially internal resource allocations for similar oversight activities over a longer period, perhaps the last 10-20 years. This would reveal trends in funding levels, shifts in program focus, and the stability of federal investment in this area.

What is the significance of the 'Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors' NAICS code for this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 926150, 'Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors,' is significant because it categorizes the core function of this contract. It signifies that the work performed by the Institute for Building Technology and Safety is primarily governmental regulatory activity. This includes setting standards, issuing licenses or approvals, and conducting inspections to ensure compliance within a specific commercial sector – in this case, manufactured housing. This classification helps in understanding the nature of the service provided, distinguishing it from commercial product development or direct service provision. It also aids in benchmarking spending against other government regulatory functions across different sectors.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Administration of Economic Programs › Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 505 HUNTMAR PARK DR # 250, HERNDON, VA, 20170

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,207,171

Exercised Options: $16,207,171

Current Obligation: $16,207,171

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline