SEC Spends $14.8M on Online Services from RELX Inc. via Non-Competitive Delivery Order

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,784,218 ($14.8M)

Contractor: Relx Inc.

Awarding Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission

Start Date: 2006-10-01

End Date: 2012-11-13

Contract Duration: 2,235 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.6K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: ENHANCED FULL-TEXT, ONE-STOP ONLINE INFORMATIONAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS VIA THE INTERNET.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20036

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Securities and Exchange Commission obligated $14.8 million to RELX INC. for work described as: ENHANCED FULL-TEXT, ONE-STOP ONLINE INFORMATIONAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS VIA THE INTERNET. Key points: 1. Significant spending on information services highlights reliance on external vendors. 2. Non-competitive award raises questions about price discovery and potential cost savings. 3. Long contract duration (2006-2012) suggests a stable, ongoing need for these services. 4. The $14.8M expenditure represents a substantial investment in digital information management.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $14.8 million over approximately six years for online informational services appears high, especially given the non-competitive nature of the award. Without comparable contracts or detailed service breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This was a non-competitive delivery order, meaning the Securities and Exchange Commission did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This method limits price discovery and may result in higher costs than if competition had been employed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have overpaid due to the lack of competition, as the agency did not explore potentially more cost-effective alternatives.

Public Impact

Citizens rely on the SEC for transparent financial market information; the cost of providing this impacts public trust. Government efficiency in procuring essential services directly affects the taxpayer's financial burden. The use of non-competitive contracts can limit opportunities for small and diverse businesses.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically focusing on online informational services and management tools. Benchmarking IT service contracts can be complex due to varying scopes and technologies, but significant investments are common for agencies requiring extensive data management.

Small Business Impact

The non-competitive nature of this award suggests that small businesses were unlikely to have had an opportunity to compete for this contract. Agencies should strive to ensure small businesses have fair access to government contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

The non-competitive award warrants further oversight to ensure the SEC obtained fair pricing and that the services provided were essential and effectively delivered. Accountability for sole-source procurements is crucial.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

securities-and-exchange-commission, dc, do, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Securities and Exchange Commission awarded $14.8 million to RELX INC.. ENHANCED FULL-TEXT, ONE-STOP ONLINE INFORMATIONAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS VIA THE INTERNET.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RELX INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (Securities and Exchange Commission).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-01. End: 2012-11-13.

Was the non-competitive award justified by unique capabilities or an emergency situation?

The provided data does not specify the justification for the non-competitive delivery order. Typically, sole-source or non-competitive awards require a documented justification, such as unique capabilities possessed by only one vendor, an urgent need that precludes competition, or a follow-on contract where competition is not feasible. Further investigation into the SEC's procurement records would be needed to confirm the rationale.

What specific 'informational services and management tools' were provided, and how did they benefit the SEC's mission?

The data describes the service broadly as 'ENHANCED FULL-TEXT, ONE-STOP ONLINE INFORMATIONAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS VIA THE INTERNET.' Without more detail, it's presumed these services relate to accessing, managing, and disseminating financial and regulatory information critical to the SEC's mission of enforcing federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry.

Could similar services have been procured at a lower cost through competitive bidding or alternative solutions?

It is highly probable that competitive bidding could have yielded a lower cost. By not exploring the market, the SEC missed the opportunity to leverage competition to drive down prices and potentially find vendors offering superior value or innovative solutions. The lack of competition makes it impossible to determine the true market price for these services.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Reed Elsevier Group PLC (UEI: 230792756)

Address: 9393 SPRINGBORO PIKE, MIAMISBURG, OH, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,784,218

Exercised Options: $14,784,218

Current Obligation: $14,784,218

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS02F0048M

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline

Start Date: 2006-10-01

Current End Date: 2012-11-13

Potential End Date: 2012-11-13 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2012-11-13

More Contracts from Relx Inc.

View all Relx Inc. federal contracts →

Other Securities and Exchange Commission Contracts

View all Securities and Exchange Commission contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending