Interior's $20.9M Contract Awarded via Full and Open Competition for Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,916,031 ($20.9M)

Contractor: NO Data From D and B

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 1999-10-15

End Date: 2002-10-15

Contract Duration: 1,096 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: DENVER, JEFFERSON County, COLORADO, 80225

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $20.9 million to NO DATA FROM D AND B for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $20.9 million over 3 years. 2. Full and open competition was utilized. 3. Award type is Cost Plus Award Fee. 4. No specific data on small business participation is available.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee structure can lead to higher costs if not managed effectively. Benchmarking against similar service contracts is difficult without more detailed performance and cost data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

Full and open competition was employed, suggesting a competitive bidding process. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure may incentivize cost increases to achieve higher award fees, potentially impacting price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is generally positive for taxpayers, promoting market efficiency. However, the CPA fee structure requires careful oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable.

Public Impact

Taxpayers benefit from the initial competitive bidding process. The effectiveness of the award fee structure in controlling costs needs monitoring. Transparency in performance metrics and fee allocation is crucial for accountability.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPA structure
Lack of specific small business participation data
Limited insight into performance metrics driving award fees

Positive Signals

Utilized full and open competition
Contract awarded by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under general services, likely supporting administrative or operational functions for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Benchmarking is difficult without specific service details, but general service contracts vary widely in cost.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not specify small business participation. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved or if there were specific set-aside goals for this contract.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust oversight to ensure that award fees are tied to demonstrable performance and that costs are controlled effectively. Regular reviews of performance metrics and fee calculations are essential.

Related Government Programs

Department of the Interior Contracting
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost creep due to CPA structure
Lack of detailed service description for benchmarking
No explicit small business participation data
Award fee criteria and justification not provided

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $20.9 million to NO DATA FROM D AND B. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NO DATA FROM D AND B.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-10-15. End: 2002-10-15.

How effectively was the Cost Plus Award Fee structure managed to control costs and ensure value for taxpayers?

The effectiveness of the CPA structure hinges on the clarity and measurability of performance objectives and the rigor of the award fee evaluation process. Without detailed performance reports and fee justifications, it's difficult to assess if costs were truly controlled or if the fee structure incentivized unnecessary spending. Strong oversight is critical to ensure value.

What specific services were procured under this contract, and how do their costs compare to industry benchmarks?

The data lacks specifics on the services procured. To assess value, a detailed breakdown of the services rendered (e.g., consulting, IT support, administrative functions) is required. Comparing these specific services against market rates and similar government contracts would reveal if the $20.9 million expenditure was reasonable.

Were there any specific challenges or successes in the full and open competition process for this contract?

While full and open competition is a positive indicator, the success of the process depends on the number and quality of bids received. Information on bid volume, the qualifications of the winning contractor, and any debriefings provided to unsuccessful bidders would offer insight into the effectiveness of the competition in achieving the best value.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: NO DATA FROM D AND B, NO DATA FROM D AND B

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,916,031

Exercised Options: $20,916,031

Current Obligation: $20,916,031

Timeline