HUD's $56M Field Service Manager contract awarded to Asset Management Specialists LLC for residential property management

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $55,898,544 ($55.9M)

Contractor: Asset Management Specialists LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2010-06-01

End Date: 2016-09-28

Contract Duration: 2,311 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 2D-2

Place of Performance

Location: LEVITTOWN, BUCKS County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19057

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $55.9 million to ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC for work described as: FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 2D-2 Key points: 1. Contract value appears substantial, necessitating a close review of performance and pricing. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding environment. 3. Contract duration of over 6 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but could limit flexibility. 5. Geographic focus on Pennsylvania highlights a specific regional requirement. 6. The contract's primary service is residential property management, aligning with HUD's mission.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $56 million over its duration is significant for residential property management services. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for managing HUD-owned properties or comparable government housing portfolios would be crucial. Without specific performance metrics or cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, though it could also lead to contractor incentives to minimize service levels if not properly monitored.

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 bids. With 12 bidders, this suggests a reasonably competitive landscape for these services. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the solicitation and evaluation criteria would further illuminate the effectiveness of this competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. The presence of multiple bidders helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for essential property management services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are residents of HUD-managed properties in Pennsylvania, who receive property management services. The contract ensures the maintenance and operational integrity of residential properties managed by HUD. Geographic impact is concentrated within Pennsylvania, specifically in areas where HUD has property holdings. The contract supports a workforce involved in property management, maintenance, and administrative tasks. This contract contributes to HUD's mission of ensuring safe and affordable housing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep given the long duration and fixed-price nature.
Ensuring consistent service quality across all managed properties requires robust oversight.
Contractor's ability to manage a large portfolio effectively needs continuous monitoring.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a strong initial price negotiation.
Fixed-price contract provides budget predictability for the agency.
The contract's clear service area (Pennsylvania) allows for focused management.

Sector Analysis

The residential property management sector is a critical component of the housing industry, particularly for government agencies like HUD. This contract falls within the broader professional services and facilities management market. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale residential property management contracts awarded by federal, state, or local housing authorities. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by the need to manage diverse housing portfolios efficiently and effectively.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities, if any were pursued by the prime contractor, Asset Management Specialists LLC. Without further information on subcontracting plans or actual awards, it's difficult to assess the broader impact on the small business ecosystem. The focus appears to be on securing a capable prime contractor through full and open competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a definitive contract awarded under full and open competition, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards outlined in the contract's statement of work and the firm-fixed-price terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance reviews are typically internal agency matters unless flagged by an Inspector General or through specific reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

HUD Housing Choice Vouchers Program
Public Housing Agency (PHA) Operations
Government Property Management Contracts
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Asset Management

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of performance degradation over time.
Fixed-price contract could incentivize cost-cutting at the expense of service quality if not closely monitored.
Potential for scope creep if contract requirements are not clearly defined and managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $55.9 million to ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC. FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 2D-2

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 $55.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-06-01. End: 2016-09-28.

What is the track record of Asset Management Specialists LLC in managing federal contracts, particularly those of similar size and scope?

Information regarding the specific track record of Asset Management Specialists LLC in managing federal contracts of this magnitude is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, any contract modifications, and any disputes or terminations associated with their previous government engagements. Understanding their history with HUD or other agencies for residential property management would provide crucial context for evaluating their capability to fulfill the requirements of this $56 million contract over its multi-year duration. Without this historical data, assessing their reliability and past performance remains speculative.

How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar residential property management services in Pennsylvania?

The provided data does not include specific pricing details beyond the total contract value, making a direct comparison to market rates challenging. To assess value for money, one would need to break down the contract into its constituent services (e.g., leasing, maintenance, tenant relations, financial reporting) and compare the allocated costs or per-unit fees (e.g., per-unit management fee) against industry benchmarks for similar properties in Pennsylvania. Factors such as property type (e.g., single-family homes, multi-family units), age, condition, and geographic density within Pennsylvania would influence market rates. A detailed cost analysis or benchmarking study would be necessary for a definitive comparison.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract, and how has the contractor performed against them?

The provided data summary does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established for this Field Service Manager contract. Typically, such contracts would include metrics related to property maintenance response times, vacancy rates, tenant satisfaction, financial reporting accuracy, and compliance with HUD regulations. Assessing the contractor's performance would require access to performance reports, inspection results, and any formal evaluations conducted by HUD during the contract period. Without these performance metrics and results, it is impossible to determine if Asset Management Specialists LLC has met or exceeded expectations.

What is the historical spending trend for residential property management services by HUD, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for HUD's residential property management services. To analyze this, one would need to examine HUD's procurement history over several fiscal years, identifying all contracts related to property management, their values, durations, and the types of services rendered. This would reveal whether spending in this area has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. This specific $56 million contract, awarded in 2010 and ending in 2016, represents a significant investment during its period, but its place within a broader trend requires comparative data on other similar HUD procurements.

Are there any identified risks associated with this contract, such as performance deficiencies, cost overruns (despite fixed price), or contractor viability issues?

The provided data summary does not explicitly list identified risks for this contract. However, potential risks inherent in a long-term, fixed-price contract for property management include the contractor potentially cutting corners on maintenance or services to maximize profit, leading to performance deficiencies. Ensuring consistent quality across a large portfolio managed by a single entity can also be a challenge. Contractor viability issues, such as financial instability or management turnover, could also pose risks, although the full and open competition and the contract's duration suggest the agency had confidence in the selected bidder. A thorough risk assessment would typically involve reviewing past performance, financial health, and operational capacity.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 12

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: $59,527,996

Exercised Options: $56,066,908

Current Obligation: $55,898,544

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline