Treasury's $53.6M ADP O&M Support contract awarded to Onpoint Consulting, Inc. over 9 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,581,537 ($53.6M)

Contractor: Onpoint Consulting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of the Treasury

Start Date: 2005-12-22

End Date: 2015-08-05

Contract Duration: 3,513 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: IT

Official Description: ADP O&M SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: HYATTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGE'S County, MARYLAND, 20782, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Treasury obligated $53.6 million to ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC. for work described as: ADP O&M SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. The contract duration of over 9 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about potential vendor lock-in. 4. The use of labor hours pricing can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively. 5. The contract's performance period spanned a significant portion of the late 2000s and early 2010s. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, indicating a focus on larger prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns. The total award amount of $53.6 million over approximately 9 years suggests an average annual spend of around $5.96 million. This figure needs to be compared against similar IT operations and maintenance support contracts within the federal government to determine if it represents a reasonable investment. The labor hours pricing structure, while common, requires diligent oversight to ensure efficiency and prevent cost creep. Without more granular data on the specific services rendered and the labor rates applied, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, specific sources may have been excluded prior to the solicitation. The presence of 4 bids indicates a degree of competition. However, the 'after exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation to understand the rationale behind any exclusions and their potential impact on the breadth of competition and final pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, despite potential source exclusions, likely provided taxpayers with a competitive price. However, understanding the exclusions is key to ensuring maximum value.

Public Impact

The Bureau of the Fiscal Service benefited from the ADP O&M support, ensuring the smooth operation of critical IT systems. Services delivered likely included maintenance, support, and potentially upgrades for the agency's automated data processing systems. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of the Treasury's operational centers. The contract supported IT professionals and potentially other roles involved in maintaining complex government IT infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically focusing on operations and maintenance (O&M) for automated data processing systems. The federal IT services market is vast, with significant spending allocated to maintaining legacy systems and implementing new technologies. Contracts like this are crucial for ensuring the continuity of government operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing IT O&M contracts across various agencies for similar-sized systems and service requirements.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This suggests that the prime contractor, Onpoint Consulting, Inc., was expected to perform the majority of the work. The absence of small business participation goals means that the direct economic impact on the small business IT ecosystem through this specific contract is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Treasury, specifically the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Accountability measures would typically involve performance reviews, adherence to service level agreements (SLAs), and financial audits. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance period.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

it, department-of-the-treasury, bureau-of-the-fiscal-service, it-operations-and-maintenance, labor-hours, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, professional-services, custom-computer-programming-services, maryland, multi-year

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Treasury awarded $53.6 million to ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC.. ADP O&M SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Treasury (Bureau of the Fiscal Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $53.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-12-22. End: 2015-08-05.

What specific IT systems or applications were covered under this ADP O&M Support contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact IT systems or applications covered under this contract. 'ADP O&M Support' is a broad category that typically encompasses the maintenance, operation, and support of automated data processing systems. This could include mainframe systems, server infrastructure, network components, databases, and associated software. For a precise understanding, one would need to consult the original contract statement of work (SOW) or related documentation, which would detail the specific hardware, software, and services required by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

How did the pricing structure (labor hours) compare to fixed-price contracts for similar services during the contract period?

Labor hour contracts, like the one awarded to Onpoint Consulting, Inc., offer flexibility but can be less predictable in terms of final cost compared to fixed-price contracts. During the 2005-2015 period, labor hour contracts were common for IT support where the scope of work might evolve. Fixed-price contracts offer cost certainty but require a very well-defined scope upfront. The relative value depends heavily on the stability of requirements. If the scope was stable, a fixed-price contract might have been more cost-effective. If requirements were dynamic, labor hours provided necessary adaptability, though potentially at a higher total cost if not managed tightly through oversight of hours and rates.

What was the rationale behind the 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the contract's competition type?

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause indicates that while the competition was intended to be 'full and open,' certain potential sources were excluded from consideration prior to the solicitation. The specific rationale for these exclusions is not provided in the summary data. Common reasons for such exclusions can include prior performance issues, failure to meet pre-qualification criteria, or specific agency policies. Understanding this rationale is crucial, as it could suggest potential risks associated with the excluded vendors or specific requirements that only a limited set of vendors could meet, potentially impacting the overall competitiveness and price achieved.

Can we assess the contractor's performance based on available data?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or ratings for Onpoint Consulting, Inc. on this contract. While the contract was awarded and completed, its success hinges on factors like meeting service level agreements, system uptime, and user satisfaction, none of which are detailed here. To assess performance, one would need to access contract performance reports, CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) data, or any documented issues or commendations related to Onpoint's service delivery during the contract's lifespan.

How does the total contract value of $53.6 million compare to other federal IT O&M contracts of similar duration?

A total award of $53.6 million over approximately 9 years translates to an average annual spend of roughly $5.96 million. To benchmark this, we would need to compare it against other federal IT Operations and Maintenance (O&M) contracts awarded during the same period (roughly 2005-2015) for similar scope and complexity. Factors like agency size, criticality of systems supported, and specific service requirements (e.g., 24/7 support, specific technologies) heavily influence contract values. Without access to a broader dataset of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state whether $5.96 million annually is high, low, or average for this type of service.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesComputer Systems Design and Related ServicesCustom Computer Programming Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Publicis Groupe S.A. (UEI: 275145670)

Address: 1515 N COURT HOUSE RD STE 310, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $90,405,638

Exercised Options: $53,581,537

Current Obligation: $53,581,537

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS06F0147Z

IDV Type: GWAC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-12-22

Current End Date: 2015-08-05

Potential End Date: 2015-08-05 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2015-08-10

More Contracts from Onpoint Consulting, Inc.

View all Onpoint Consulting, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of the Treasury Contracts

View all Department of the Treasury contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending