Treasury's IRS awards $21.9M IT contract to Iron Bow Technologies for computer systems design

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,924,422 ($21.9M)

Contractor: Iron BOW Technologies, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of the Treasury

Start Date: 2003-10-15

End Date: 2004-09-13

Contract Duration: 334 days

Daily Burn Rate: $65.6K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: ADDING A CLIN AND CHANGING QUANTITIES

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Treasury obligated $21.9 million to IRON BOW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC for work described as: ADDING A CLIN AND CHANGING QUANTITIES Key points: 1. Contract value of $21.9 million for computer systems design services. 2. Awarded to Iron Bow Technologies, LLC, a known IT solutions provider. 3. This is a non-competitive delivery order, raising questions about price discovery. 4. The contract duration is 334 days, indicating a short-term need. 5. Fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 6. The contract falls under the IT sector, specifically computer systems design. 7. Virginia is the place of performance, suggesting a regional impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $21.9 million for computer systems design services is substantial. Without specific deliverables or a comparison to similar contracts for identical services, it's difficult to definitively benchmark the value. However, the non-competitive nature of the award warrants scrutiny regarding whether the government achieved the best possible price. The fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but the absence of competition limits the ability to assess true market value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order. This means that the IRS did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. While there may be justifications for sole-source awards (e.g., urgency, unique capabilities), it significantly limits the opportunity for price competition and potentially leads to higher costs for the government. The lack of a competitive process means we cannot assess the number of bidders or the dynamics of price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. Without competition, there's less pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the primary beneficiary, receiving computer systems design services. The services delivered are related to IT infrastructure and design, crucial for government operations. The place of performance is Virginia, indicating potential economic impact and job opportunities within the state. The contract supports the IRS's mission-critical functions through enhanced IT capabilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price scrutiny.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment challenging.
Short contract duration might indicate a reactive need rather than strategic planning.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type offers cost predictability.
Award to an established entity, Iron Bow Technologies, suggests potential for reliable service delivery.

Sector Analysis

The IT services sector is vast and highly competitive. Computer systems design services, specifically NAICS code 541512, encompass a wide range of activities from hardware and software integration to network design. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without knowing the specific scope of work, but IT services represent a substantial portion of federal IT spending, often in the billions annually.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, this award does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-aside provisions or mandated subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

As a non-competitive delivery order, oversight would typically involve contract management by the contracting officer and program officials within the IRS. Transparency is limited due to the lack of public competition. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance or award process.

Related Government Programs

IT Services
Computer Systems Design
Federal IT Procurement
Department of the Treasury Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Limited scope definition
Potential for overpricing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Treasury awarded $21.9 million to IRON BOW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. ADDING A CLIN AND CHANGING QUANTITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IRON BOW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-10-15. End: 2004-09-13.

What specific computer systems design services were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Computer Systems Design Services' under NAICS code 541512. However, the specific nature of these services (e.g., network architecture, software integration, hardware configuration, cybersecurity design) is not detailed. Understanding the precise deliverables is crucial for assessing the contract's value and comparing it to market rates. Without this granular information, the analysis remains at a high level, focusing on the general category of IT design services.

Why was this contract awarded on a non-competitive basis?

The data explicitly states this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER'. Federal procurement regulations allow for non-competitive awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can satisfy the agency's needs, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. Without further documentation from the agency (like a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition - JOFOC), the precise reason remains unknown. This lack of competition is a key factor in assessing potential value for money, as it bypasses the price discovery mechanisms inherent in competitive bidding.

How does the $21.9 million contract value compare to similar IT design services contracts?

Benchmarking the $21.9 million value requires comparing it to contracts with similar scopes of work, duration, and complexity within the computer systems design domain. Given this is a non-competitive award and the specific services are not detailed, a direct comparison is difficult. However, federal IT spending is substantial, and contracts of this magnitude are not uncommon for significant system design projects. The absence of competition means this price might not reflect the lowest achievable market rate, making direct comparison less indicative of 'good value' without further context on the services rendered.

What is the track record of Iron Bow Technologies, LLC with federal contracts?

Iron Bow Technologies, LLC is a known entity in the federal IT contracting space. While the provided data doesn't detail their specific performance history on this particular contract (as it's a past award), the company generally engages in providing IT solutions and services to government agencies. A deeper dive into their contract history, including past performance reviews, past performance information (PPI), and any reported issues or successes on similar contracts, would be necessary to fully assess their reliability and capability for this type of work.

What are the potential risks associated with a non-competitive IT services contract of this size?

The primary risk associated with a non-competitive award is the potential for paying a higher price than would be achieved through competition. Other risks include a lack of innovation if the contractor isn't incentivized by market pressure, and potential challenges in ensuring the services precisely meet evolving needs if the scope wasn't rigorously defined and competed. Furthermore, without a competitive process, there's a reduced ability to assess the contractor's unique qualifications against alternatives, potentially leading to suboptimal solutions if other vendors possessed superior capabilities.

What is the historical spending pattern for computer systems design services at the IRS?

The provided data only pertains to a single contract award from 2003-2004. To understand historical spending patterns for computer systems design services at the IRS, one would need to analyze procurement data over multiple years, looking at the total dollars obligated, the number of contracts awarded, the types of competition used (competitive vs. non-competitive), and the primary contractors receiving these awards. This single data point is insufficient to establish any meaningful historical trend or pattern.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Systems Design Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 4800 WESTFIELDS BLVD, CHANTILLY, VA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,924,422

Exercised Options: $21,924,422

Current Obligation: $21,924,422

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F4460G

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline