DoD awards $23M for food services in Georgia, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,958,557 ($23.0M)

Contractor: Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-07-01

End Date: 2024-11-08

Contract Duration: 496 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SUPPLIES

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.0 million to GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY for work described as: SUPPLIES Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. High per-unit cost suggests potential for overpayment compared to market benchmarks. 3. Lack of competition raises concerns about contractor performance incentives. 4. Contract duration extends beyond a year, indicating a significant commitment of resources. 5. Focus on food services highlights critical support functions for military personnel. 6. Geographic concentration in Georgia may limit broader market engagement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $22,958,557.32 for food services appears high, especially given the contract was not competed. Benchmarking against similar contracts for food services within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies is crucial. The per-unit cost of $46,287, while not explicitly defined (e.g., per meal, per person per day), seems elevated when considering the total contract value and duration. Without more granular data on the scope of services and the number of individuals served, a definitive value assessment is difficult, but the lack of competition and the raw dollar amount warrant scrutiny.

Cost Per Unit: $46,287 (contract value divided by number of orders, not a true per-unit cost)

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically reserved for situations where only one responsible source can provide the required goods or services. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that multiple vendors did not have the opportunity to offer their pricing and services, which can lead to higher prices and potentially less innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure to drive down costs. The government missed an opportunity to leverage market forces to secure the best possible value.

Public Impact

Military personnel stationed in Georgia will receive essential food services. The contract supports the operational readiness of the Department of the Army by ensuring adequate sustenance for its members. The economic impact is concentrated within Georgia, potentially benefiting local suppliers and employees of the contractor. This contract ensures the well-being and morale of service members through reliable food provision.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and value.
High total contract value without clear per-unit cost benchmarks raises value concerns.
Extended contract duration without competition could lead to complacency.
Geographic concentration may not reflect the most cost-effective sourcing options.

Positive Signals

Ensures critical food services are provided to military personnel.
Contract is for a defined period, providing budget certainty.
Awarded to an entity with apparent capability to serve the specified needs.

Sector Analysis

The food service industry is a significant sector within government contracting, encompassing a wide range of services from cafeteria operations to large-scale catering for military bases and other federal facilities. This contract falls under the broader category of support services. Comparable spending benchmarks for food services within the Department of Defense can vary widely based on location, scale, and specific requirements, but typically range from millions to tens of millions annually for large installations. The market is generally competitive, making sole-source awards notable.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss': false and 'sb': false. The prime contractor, Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, is a state agency, not typically a small business. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract may be limited unless they are direct suppliers or subcontractors to the prime awardee.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would include performance monitoring against contract requirements, delivery schedules, and quality standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction may be invoked if fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Food Service Contracts
Military Base Support Services
Georgia State Contracts
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Unclear per-unit cost justification
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.0 million to GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY. SUPPLIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-07-01. End: 2024-11-08.

What specific food services are included in this $23 million contract, and what is the expected volume or number of personnel served?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Food Service Contractors' (NAICS 722310) and has a total award value of $22,958,557.32. However, the specific details of the food services, such as meal types (e.g., dining hall, catering, packaged meals), service locations, and the number of personnel to be served daily or over the contract period, are not explicitly detailed in the summary data. The per-unit cost benchmark of $46,287 is derived from the total award divided by the number of delivery orders (46,287 orders), which is not a meaningful per-unit cost for food services. A true per-unit cost would likely be calculated per meal, per person per day, or per person per month. Without this granular information, it is difficult to assess the efficiency or value for money of the services provided.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis, and what efforts were made to explore other potential vendors?

The contract was designated as 'NOT COMPETED' (CT: NOT COMPETED), which typically signifies a sole-source or limited competition award. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source is available, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. The data does not provide the justification for this sole-source determination. Typically, agencies must conduct market research to ensure no other sources exist or can be developed. The lack of competition suggests that either the agency identified a unique capability or circumstance, or that the process for exploring competition was insufficient, potentially leading to a higher cost for taxpayers.

How does the total contract value of $23 million compare to historical spending on food services for this specific military installation or region?

To assess the historical spending context, one would need to examine prior food service contracts awarded to this or similar entities for the same or comparable military installations in Georgia or the surrounding region. The provided data only shows this single award. Analyzing historical data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for the Department of the Army or specific bases would reveal trends in spending, contract types (competitive vs. sole-source), and average award values. Without this comparative data, it's challenging to determine if $23 million represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending for these services over time.

What performance metrics or quality standards are associated with this contract, and how is contractor performance being monitored?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics, quality standards, or details on the monitoring mechanisms for this contract. In standard federal contracts, performance is typically governed by a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW), which outlines deliverables, service levels, and quality requirements. Contract officers and technical monitors are responsible for overseeing contractor performance against these standards. Key performance indicators (KPIs) might include food quality, timeliness of service, sanitation compliance, and customer satisfaction. The absence of this information in the summary data means we cannot assess the rigor of oversight or the contractor's adherence to expected standards.

What is the role of the Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency in fulfilling this Department of Defense contract, and are they a direct service provider or a pass-through entity?

The Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency (GVRA) is listed as the contracting entity ('co': GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY). GVRA is a state government agency focused on helping individuals with disabilities prepare for and maintain employment. Its involvement in a Department of Defense contract for food services is unusual. It raises questions about whether GVRA is directly providing the food services, perhaps as part of a supported employment program for its clients, or if it is acting as an intermediary or pass-through entity, subcontracting the actual service delivery to another company. Understanding GVRA's specific role is crucial for assessing the contract's structure and potential value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Accommodation and Food Services › Special Food Services › Food Service Contractors

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5238 ROYAL WOODS PKWY, TUCKER, GA, 30084

Business Categories: Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,958,557

Exercised Options: $22,958,557

Current Obligation: $22,958,557

Actual Outlays: $5,554,058

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SF23D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline