HUD's $83.5M Field Service Manager contract awarded to Asset Management Specialists LLC for residential property management in Pennsylvania

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $83,487,281 ($83.5M)

Contractor: Asset Management Specialists LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2010-06-01

End Date: 2016-10-12

Contract Duration: 2,325 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 22

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 1D-3

Place of Performance

Location: LEVITTOWN, BUCKS County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19057

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $83.5 million to ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC for work described as: FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 1D-3 Key points: 1. The contract's value of $83.5 million over its duration suggests a significant investment in property management services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a broad market solicitation for this service. 3. The contract type is a firm-fixed-price definitive contract, which typically shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Performance occurred over a substantial period, from June 2010 to October 2016, allowing for long-term service delivery. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 531311 points to residential property management as the core service. 6. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Asset Management Specialists LLC, for the entirety of its term. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, suggesting larger firms were likely participants in the competition.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific service delivery metrics or comparable contracts for similar scope and duration. The total value of $83.5 million spread over approximately 6.3 years (2325 days) averages to roughly $13.2 million per year. This figure needs to be assessed against the number of properties managed, the complexity of the management tasks, and the geographic coverage within Pennsylvania to determine true value for money. Without more granular data on the services provided and their outcomes, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

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 potentially achieving better pricing and service quality. The data indicates 22 offers were received, suggesting a robust competitive environment for this requirement. A higher number of bids typically correlates with more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages a wider pool of contractors to bid, driving down prices and improving the quality of services through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are residents of HUD-managed properties in Pennsylvania, who receive services related to property maintenance and management. The contract facilitated the delivery of essential residential property management services, ensuring the upkeep and operational efficiency of housing units. The geographic impact is concentrated within Pennsylvania, where the properties under management are located. The contract supported a workforce involved in property management, maintenance, and administrative tasks within the designated region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's effectiveness beyond contract completion.
The long duration of the contract could potentially lead to complacency or reduced innovation if not actively managed.
Limited transparency on the specific services rendered and their impact on property conditions requires further investigation.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a deliberate effort to secure the best possible value through market forces.
A firm-fixed-price contract structure generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The award to a single entity for the full term indicates a successful selection process based on the initial competition.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on real estate and property management. The market for residential property management services is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and operate housing portfolios for various entities, including government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale property management contracts awarded by federal agencies or large private real estate firms, considering factors like property type, portfolio size, and geographic scope.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the competition was likely dominated by larger firms capable of handling the scale of this contract. The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate in this specific contract were limited, though they might be involved in the broader property management ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, although detailed operational oversight information may not be publicly available. The Inspector General for HUD would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

HUD Public Housing Management
HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Single Family Loan Program
General Services Administration (GSA) Real Estate Services

Risk Flags

Potential for performance degradation over a long contract duration.
Need for detailed performance metrics to fully assess value.
Limited visibility into specific service delivery outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $83.5 million to ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC. FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 1D-3

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC.

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 $83.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-06-01. End: 2016-10-12.

What specific property management services were included under this contract, and how were they measured for performance?

The provided data identifies the contract as 'FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 1D-3' with NAICS code 531311 (Residential Property Managers). This suggests services likely encompassed a range of activities necessary for managing residential properties, such as tenant relations, rent collection, property maintenance oversight, lease administration, and ensuring compliance with housing regulations. Performance measurement would typically be detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW), outlining key performance indicators (KPIs) like response times for maintenance requests, tenant satisfaction levels, property inspection scores, and financial reporting accuracy. Without access to the full contract documentation, the precise metrics and their targets remain unspecified.

How does the $83.5 million contract value compare to similar large-scale residential property management contracts awarded by federal agencies?

Comparing the $83.5 million contract value requires context regarding the scope, duration, and geographic coverage. This contract spanned approximately 6.3 years (2325 days), averaging about $13.2 million annually. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify other federal contracts for managing similar portfolios of residential properties, ideally within the same region or with comparable property types (e.g., public housing, affordable housing). For instance, contracts for managing large military housing privatization projects or extensive portfolios of foreclosed properties by agencies like the GSA or VA could serve as comparators. The number of units managed, the complexity of services (e.g., full-service maintenance vs. oversight), and the specific market rates in Pennsylvania would be crucial factors in determining if this contract represented good value.

What were the key risks identified for this contract, and what mitigation strategies were employed?

Potential risks for a contract of this nature and scale could include contractor performance issues (e.g., failure to maintain properties adequately, poor tenant relations), cost overruns (though mitigated by firm-fixed-price), contract scope creep, or challenges in managing a large geographic area like Pennsylvania. Risks related to compliance with HUD regulations and fair housing laws would also be significant. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight, clear performance standards in the PWS, regular performance reviews, defined dispute resolution processes, and potentially performance bonds. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts much of the financial risk to the contractor, but risks related to service quality and compliance remain critical areas for government oversight.

What was the historical spending pattern for Field Service Manager (FSM) services by HUD prior to or following this contract?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for FSM services by HUD would provide context on the consistency and evolution of this requirement. Data on previous FSM contracts, including their values, durations, and awarded contractors, would reveal whether HUD has consistently relied on such contracts for property management. Examining spending trends could indicate whether the scope or cost of these services has increased or decreased over time, potentially due to changes in housing policy, property inventory, or market conditions. Understanding this history helps assess if the $83.5 million award represents a typical investment or an outlier, and whether there have been shifts in contracting strategies for property management.

How did the 22 offers received in the full and open competition influence the final contract price and terms?

A robust competition with 22 offers typically exerts downward pressure on pricing, as contractors strive to submit the most competitive bids to win the contract. The presence of numerous bidders suggests a healthy market response, increasing the likelihood that the government secured favorable pricing relative to what might be achieved in a less competitive environment. The terms of the contract, such as performance standards, payment schedules, and reporting requirements, are also influenced by competition. Contractors may be more willing to agree to stringent terms or offer innovative solutions when faced with multiple competitors vying for the same award. The final price reflects the negotiated outcome of this competitive process, aiming to balance cost with required performance.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Activities Related to Real Estate › Residential Property Managers

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 22

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2021 HARTEL ST, LEVITTOWN, PA, 19057

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $83,487,281

Exercised Options: $83,487,281

Current Obligation: $83,487,281

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline