FOIA Response To HUD 3.6

Below is the reply from HUD.  I feel that is was WAY above and beyond what most governmental agencies would ever put together for an initial inquiry.  As such, I am redacting the name of the respondent and would ask that if folks are going to actually request FOIA information that they communicate with ALL interested parties so that this office DOES NOT get hammered with a bunch of redundant questions and/or requests.  The reality is that unless you are fairly fluent in legalese it will be meaningless.  We additionally believe that by retaining Counsel to proffer the request we stand a good chance of having the information released under an exemption.  Our position is that the American Public’s best interests would be served by being able to view information in a common area.  On the one hand Contractors are interested due to the industry and on the other the Public have a vested interest to understand the ramifications of utilizing federal funds in a manner which may cause the bankruptcy of small businesses.

FOIA requests to my office would need to be routed through William “Gabe” Daugherty, who serves as the Regional FOIA Coordinator. You may confirm your request through Gabe, who I have copied on this response. Note, there may be research and/or copying fees associated with the request, depending on the quantity of information requested, and how much research needs to go into the preparation.  There would be no audio or video material available, as it was not requested under the terms of the solicitation.  Additionally, any of the proposals themselves or other than certified cost or pricing data would be considered protected under the prohibition from release found at FAR 24.202(a) and 24.202(b).  However, copies of the contracts could be made available with limited  redactions, as required by any of the applicable exemptions identified in 5 U.S.C 552(b).  Please be specific, if you move forward with a FOIA request as to what Contract files or records you would like to receive.

In order to receive national inventory data as it relates to PK Management, that portion of the request would need to be coordinated through HQ Single Family Asset Management (SFAM), as my office does not have direct access to that data in the SAMS system.  Ivery Himes is the Director of SFAM, and would be the appropriate POC.  As far as state and national data, the records I have show that HUD only had 2,938 total acquisitions for the state of TN during FY11.  Granted, there may have been some carry-over from the previous FY, but nowhere near the 12,999 that you have stated.  Inventory was on the rise in TN during FY12, with acquisitions in TN totaling 4,013.  Total HUD REO acquisitions for the entire US (both CONUS and qualifying territories) for FY12 were 103,173, and the end of FY12 active national inventory was 37,343 total assets.

 Solicitation documents were publicly issued for the FSM 3.6 solicitation, and are available for download here:  https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=23fb85bb7c7c64657bba6a58ec180dd4&tab=core&_cview=0.  For the most part, the resulting contracts, including the PWS will mirror the solicitation.  I do not have any way of tracking the monies paid to subcontractors for qualifying Small Businesses, such as PK Management, as they are not required to file a Subcontracting Plan or provide reporting to the Electronic Subcontractor Reporting System (eSRS).  Only qualifying Large Businesses would be required to report in eSRS.  PK will likely graduate to large under the corresponding NAICS code for their new awards, which has a threshold of $16.5M in average annual receipts.  However, the eSRS filing requirement does not apply to contracts awarded prior to the threshold being reached.  It is worth noting that HUD received several SB size protests in response to the FSM 3.6 awards, which were independently reviewed by the Small Business Administration.  PK Management was among the firms challenged, and SBA confirmed PK’s qualification as a SB for the 3.6 competition.  The “1 Billion + dollar” value referenced below is the contract ceiling of the Indefinite Quantity Contract.  The corresponding Task Order award represents a better indicator of actual value for the base period, and is available for public download at www.fpds.gov.  Because I can’t directly link to the report for Contract DU204SA-12-D-10 TO 0001, which covers AL, MS, and TN, I am including a screenshot below.  As you will note, the funded value is $38,185,639.67 which covers the entire base period.

 

Search

Contract Opportunities

You must be logged in to post a comment Login