Interior Department awards $10.2M for long-term wild horse holding, raising questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,191,322 ($10.2M)

Contractor: Shadow 7 LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2006-10-01

End Date: 2011-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,917 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LONG TERM WILD HORSE HOLDING FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: WICHITA, SEDGWICK County, KANSAS, 67278

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $10.2 million to SHADOW 7 LLC for work described as: LONG TERM WILD HORSE HOLDING FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract value of $10.2M over 5 years suggests significant ongoing costs for animal care. 2. Limited competition dynamics may impact price discovery and taxpayer value. 3. Long contract duration could indicate a stable but potentially less adaptable service provider. 4. Performance context is crucial to understand if the facility meets animal welfare and management standards. 5. Sector positioning within animal production support highlights a niche but essential government function.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of over $10 million for long-term wild horse holding over five years warrants scrutiny. Without comparable contract data for similar facilities or services, it's difficult to benchmark the value for money. The fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty for the government, but the per-animal cost and overall efficiency need to be assessed against industry standards for animal husbandry and land management. The absence of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes a definitive value assessment challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. This suggests a potentially limited pool of bidders, which could affect the level of price negotiation and innovation. With only two bidders identified, the competition was not robust, potentially leading to higher prices than a more competitive environment might yield. The specific reasons for excluding other sources are not detailed, making it hard to fully assess the impact on competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition and a small number of bidders can mean taxpayers may not be getting the most cost-effective solution. The government might have paid a premium due to the restricted bidding process.

Public Impact

Wild horses removed from public lands benefit from long-term care and holding. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) receives essential support for its wild horse and burro management program. The contract supports the agricultural sector in Kansas through the provision of services. The workforce in the local Kansas area may benefit from employment opportunities related to facility operation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of innovative solutions.
The long duration of the contract could lead to complacency or reduced incentive for efficiency improvements.
Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the quality of care provided to the horses.
The rationale for excluding certain sources in the competition process is unclear and warrants further investigation.

Positive Signals

The contract provides a stable, long-term solution for a critical aspect of wild horse management.
A fixed-price contract offers cost predictability for the government over the contract period.
The award to a single entity ensures continuity of service for the duration of the contract.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Other Services' or 'Support Activities for Animal Production' sector. This sector encompasses a range of services related to animal care, management, and production. The market for specialized long-term animal holding facilities, particularly for wild or unmanaged populations, is niche. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found within government contracts for animal shelters, wildlife rehabilitation centers, or large-scale livestock management, though the unique regulatory and welfare considerations for wild horses differentiate it.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the contract was likely awarded to a larger entity capable of meeting the extensive requirements for long-term wild horse holding, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses in this specific service area.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Department of the Interior. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and deliverables, which are not detailed here. Transparency is facilitated by contract databases, but the specifics of day-to-day operations and adherence to welfare standards would require direct BLM oversight and potentially Inspector General reviews if performance issues arise.

Related Government Programs

Wild Horse and Burro Program
Animal Care Services
Federal Land Management
Livestock Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Unclear rationale for source exclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $10.2 million to SHADOW 7 LLC. LONG TERM WILD HORSE HOLDING FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SHADOW 7 LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-01. End: 2011-12-31.

What specific animal welfare standards and management practices are mandated in this contract for the long-term holding of wild horses?

The provided data does not specify the exact animal welfare standards or management practices mandated in the contract. However, contracts for the long-term holding of wild horses typically require adherence to guidelines set forth by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which are designed to ensure the humane care and management of these animals. These standards generally include provisions for adequate nutrition, water, veterinary care, shelter, and appropriate space. Performance metrics would likely assess factors such as mortality rates, body condition scores, and the overall health of the horses. A thorough review of the contract's statement of work and associated performance work statement would be necessary to detail these specific requirements.

How does the per-animal cost of this contract compare to other federal or state-run wild horse holding facilities?

Benchmarking the per-animal cost is challenging without more specific data on the number of horses held under this contract and the detailed operational costs. The total award of $10.2 million over approximately five years (1917 days) suggests a significant investment. Federal and state facilities can vary widely in cost due to differences in land availability, labor costs, climate, and the level of care provided. Generally, long-term holding facilities aim for cost-effectiveness, but the specialized nature of wild horse care, including veterinary services and land management, can increase expenses. A detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing this contract's per-animal cost against the average costs reported by the BLM for its own facilities or other contracted providers would be needed for a precise comparison.

What were the specific reasons for excluding other potential bidders in this 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' implies that the agency initially intended to compete the contract broadly but subsequently excluded certain potential offerors. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed in the provided summary data. Typically, exclusions might occur if potential bidders fail to meet mandatory pre-qualification criteria, such as possessing specific licenses, certifications, demonstrated experience with large-scale animal husbandry, or the financial capacity to manage such a long-term contract. Alternatively, if the initial solicitation resulted in an insufficient number of qualified offers, the agency might have revised the solicitation or negotiated with a limited number of previously identified capable sources. Understanding the precise justification requires accessing the contract file or agency procurement documentation.

What is the track record of Shadow 7 LLC in managing large-scale animal holding or similar government contracts?

Information regarding the track record of Shadow 7 LLC in managing large-scale animal holding or similar government contracts is not provided in the summary data. To assess their suitability and past performance, one would need to review their contract history, including previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A company's experience with animal care, facility management, and compliance with government regulations would be key indicators of their capability to successfully execute this long-term wild horse holding contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a 5-year contract for wild horse holding, and how are they mitigated?

A significant risk with a 5-year contract for wild horse holding is the potential for vendor complacency, leading to a decline in service quality or efficiency over time. Another risk is the possibility of unforeseen cost increases for the contractor that are not adequately covered by the fixed-price agreement, potentially leading to disputes or a desire to cut corners. Furthermore, changes in wild horse population dynamics or management strategies by the BLM could render the contracted facility's capacity or services less optimal. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust performance monitoring by the BLM, clearly defined service level agreements, regular inspections, and contract clauses that allow for adjustments or penalties based on performance outcomes. The limited competition also presents a risk of the government not securing the best possible value over the contract's life.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting › Support Activities for Animal Production › Support Activities for Animal Production

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVERVAT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: NAR060059

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1223 N ROCK RD, WICHITA, KS, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,685,142

Exercised Options: $12,007,912

Current Obligation: $10,191,322

Timeline