HUD's $29M Field Service Manager contract awarded to Cooper-Citiwest JV shows strong competition and fair pricing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,051,457 ($29.1M)

Contractor: Cooper-Citiwest JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2010-06-01

End Date: 2017-10-10

Contract Duration: 2,688 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

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

Place of Performance

Location: MARIETTA, COBB County, GEORGIA, 30064

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $29.1 million to COOPER-CITIWEST JV for work described as: FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 3P-1 Key points: 1. The contract achieved a competitive award with 10 bidders, indicating robust market interest and potential for price discovery. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure likely incentivizes contractor efficiency and cost control. 3. The contract duration of over 6 years suggests a need for stable, long-term service provision. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, maximizing opportunities for qualified vendors. 5. The contract's focus on residential property management points to a critical service for public housing. 6. The geographic focus on Georgia (GA) indicates a localized service delivery model.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the firm-fixed-price contract type and the competitive nature of the award suggest a reasonable valuation. Benchmarking against similar large-scale residential property management contracts would provide further insight, but the presence of 10 bidders implies that the pricing was likely competitive and aligned with market expectations for services of this scope and duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 10 distinct bids received. This high level of participation suggests a healthy market for these services and that the solicitation effectively reached a broad range of potential contractors. The significant number of bidders likely contributed to a competitive pricing environment, allowing the agency to select an offer that balanced cost and technical merit.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award like this generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and ensuring the government receives good value for its investment. The broad competition indicates that taxpayer funds were likely used efficiently in securing these essential property management services.

Public Impact

Residents of public housing in Georgia benefit from professional property management services, ensuring safe and well-maintained living environments. The contract supports the Department of Housing and Urban Development's mission to create strong, sustainable communities. The services delivered include the management and maintenance of residential properties, contributing to the quality of life for low-income families. The geographic impact is concentrated within the state of Georgia, addressing specific regional housing needs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to complacency if not actively managed.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can shift risk to the contractor, potentially leading to higher initial bids to cover contingencies.
Geographic concentration might limit opportunities for contractors based elsewhere.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition ensures a wide pool of qualified contractors.
Multiple bidders indicate strong market interest and potential for innovation.
The contract's focus on essential housing services aligns with HUD's core mission.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader professional services sector, specifically focusing on property and facility management. The residential property management market is substantial, encompassing both public and private entities. HUD's spending in this area is critical for maintaining the quality and availability of affordable housing. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within government-wide contract vehicles for facilities maintenance and management, or through analysis of similar large-scale residential portfolio management contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Cooper-Citiwest JV, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the contract, depending on their own business practices and the specific needs of the service delivery.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is facilitated by public contract databases where award details are recorded. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction for this particular contract isn't detailed, HUD's Office of Inspector General typically oversees agency programs and contracts for fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Public Housing Agency (PHA) Operations
Property Management Services
Residential Real Estate Management
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Programs

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration
Potential for service quality degradation under fixed price
Geographic concentration of services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $29.1 million to COOPER-CITIWEST JV. FIELD SERVICE MANAGER (FSM) M&M III-CONTRACT AREA 3P-1

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COOPER-CITIWEST JV.

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 $29.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-06-01. End: 2017-10-10.

What is the track record of Cooper-Citiwest JV with HUD or similar agencies?

Detailed track record information for Cooper-Citiwest JV specifically with HUD is not directly available in the provided data snippet. However, the award of a significant definitive contract valued at over $29 million suggests a level of capability and experience deemed sufficient by HUD to manage complex residential property services. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, other contracts held by the joint venture or its constituent companies, and any history of disputes or performance issues with federal agencies. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases and past performance databases would be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of their history.

How does the $29 million contract value compare to similar residential property management contracts awarded by HUD?

The $29 million contract value for Field Service Manager (FSM) services over approximately 7 years (June 2010 - Oct 2017) represents a substantial investment in property management. To benchmark this, one would need to compare it against other large-scale residential property management contracts awarded by HUD or other federal agencies managing similar portfolios. Factors such as the number of units managed, geographic scope, and the specific services included (e.g., maintenance, leasing, resident services) are crucial for a fair comparison. Without access to a database of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if $29 million is high or low, but it indicates a significant operational scope.

What are the primary risks associated with a long-term, firm-fixed-price contract for residential property management?

A primary risk with long-term, firm-fixed-price contracts is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on service quality to maximize profit, especially if costs increase unexpectedly over the contract's duration. For residential property management, this could manifest as deferred maintenance, slower response times to resident issues, or reduced upkeep of common areas. Another risk is that the fixed price may not adequately account for unforeseen market changes or regulatory shifts, potentially leading to contractor dissatisfaction or requests for modification. Conversely, if the contractor is highly efficient, the government might have overpaid compared to actual service costs, though the competitive award aims to mitigate this.

How effective has HUD been in managing its portfolio of residential properties through such contracts?

The effectiveness of HUD in managing its residential properties through contracts like this is multifaceted. On one hand, awarding contracts to specialized firms like Cooper-Citiwest JV can bring professional expertise and economies of scale that HUD might not achieve internally. The competitive bidding process aims to ensure value for money. However, the effectiveness ultimately depends on HUD's contract oversight, performance monitoring, and the responsiveness of the contractor to issues. Public housing resident satisfaction surveys, property inspection reports, and audit findings from HUD's Office of Inspector General would provide the most direct measures of effectiveness.

What are the historical spending patterns for residential property management services by HUD?

Historical spending patterns for residential property management by HUD are likely substantial, given its mandate to oversee a vast portfolio of public and subsidized housing. This $29 million contract represents a portion of that spending over its period of performance. To understand broader patterns, one would need to analyze HUD's budget allocations and contract awards over multiple fiscal years, looking at trends in total spending, the number and value of property management contracts, and the types of services procured. Such analysis would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable, and how it aligns with changes in the housing market or federal housing policies.

What is the significance of the 'Residential Property Managers' (NAICS 531311) classification for this contract?

The NAICS code 531311, 'Residential Property Managers,' is significant as it precisely defines the core service being procured. This classification ensures that the contract solicitation targets companies with specific expertise in managing apartment buildings, housing complexes, and other residential properties. It guides potential bidders, helps in benchmarking costs against industry standards for residential management, and allows for more accurate tracking of federal spending within this specialized sector. For HUD, it signifies a focus on the operational aspects of maintaining and overseeing housing units for residents.

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: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2618 BRANSON PL, MARIETTA, GA, 30064

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,051,457

Exercised Options: $29,051,457

Current Obligation: $29,051,457

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline