Road construction contract awarded for $178.4M to improve infrastructure between Gardez and Khost

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $178,369,630 ($178.4M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2007-06-01

End Date: 2014-12-17

Contract Duration: 2,756 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.7K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS AWARD IS TO PROVIDE ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM GARDEZ TO KHOST.TAS::72 1037::TAS

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $178.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS AWARD IS TO PROVIDE ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM GARDEZ TO KHOST.TAS::72 1037::TAS Key points: 1. Significant investment in critical infrastructure development for the region. 2. Long duration suggests a complex and extensive project. 3. Contract type indicates potential for cost overruns if not managed carefully. 4. Lack of disclosed awardee raises transparency concerns. 5. Project aligns with broader development goals for Afghanistan. 6. Focus on road construction implies potential for improved trade and access.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of $178.4 million for a road construction project spanning over seven years (2007-2014) represents a substantial commitment. Benchmarking this cost requires detailed project specifications, but given the duration and the nature of infrastructure development in challenging environments, the price appears within a plausible range, though specific cost-per-mile or cost-per-kilometer data would be needed for a precise assessment. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure can lead to higher final costs compared to fixed-price contracts if initial estimates are inaccurate or scope changes occur.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, indicating a sole-source procurement. The rationale for this approach is not detailed in the provided data. Sole-source awards can sometimes be justified for specialized services or urgent needs, but they limit the potential for competitive bidding, which typically drives down prices and fosters innovation. The absence of competition means that the government did not benefit from multiple offers to compare.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not have received the best possible price due to the lack of competitive pressure.

Public Impact

Residents and businesses in the Gardez and Khost regions will benefit from improved transportation infrastructure. Enhanced road connectivity is expected to facilitate trade, economic activity, and access to essential services. The project likely supported local employment during its construction phase. Improved road networks can enhance security and logistical capabilities in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency in awardee selection due to sole-source nature.
Potential for cost escalation with 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' contract type.
Limited public information on project performance and specific outcomes.

Positive Signals

Addresses critical infrastructure needs in a developing region.
Long-term commitment suggests strategic importance for the area.
Project completion (if achieved) would represent a significant development milestone.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction and infrastructure development sector, specifically focusing on transportation networks. The global market for road construction is vast, driven by government spending on public works and private sector development. Projects in post-conflict or developing regions often carry higher costs due to logistical challenges, security concerns, and the need for specialized expertise. The $178.4 million figure is substantial for a single project, reflecting the scale and complexity of building or significantly upgrading roads in such an environment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting plans for this contract. Given the sole-source nature and the large scale of the project, it is unclear what opportunities, if any, were made available to small businesses. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors or if the prime awardee had any small business utilization goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a delivery order under a larger framework (implied by 'delivery order'), oversight might have been managed through the contracting agency. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure necessitates robust financial oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Transparency regarding performance metrics, expenditures, and any modifications would be crucial for effective accountability.

Related Government Programs

Afghanistan Infrastructure Projects
USAID Development Contracts
Road and Highway Construction
International Development Assistance

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Transparency
Sole-Source Procurement
Potential for Cost Overruns (CPFF)
Limited Performance Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $178.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). THE PURPOSE OF THIS AWARD IS TO PROVIDE ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM GARDEZ TO KHOST.TAS::72 1037::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Agency for International Development (Agency for International Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $178.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-01. End: 2014-12-17.

Who was the specific contractor awarded this delivery order, and what is their track record with similar infrastructure projects?

The provided data lists the awardee as 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'. This lack of specific identification is a significant transparency issue. Without knowing the contractor, it is impossible to assess their track record, experience with road construction in similar environments, or past performance on USAID or other government contracts. This anonymity prevents a thorough evaluation of the contractor's capability and reliability for a project of this magnitude and duration.

How does the cost per mile or kilometer for this project compare to similar road construction projects in Afghanistan or comparable regions?

The provided data does not include specific details on the length of the road constructed or the terrain, making a precise cost-per-mile or cost-per-kilometer calculation impossible. However, the total award of $178.4 million over approximately seven years suggests a significant investment. Road construction in challenging environments, particularly in regions with security concerns and logistical complexities like Afghanistan, typically incurs higher costs than in more stable, developed nations. Without detailed project scope (e.g., new construction vs. rehabilitation, type of terrain, materials used), direct comparison is difficult, but the overall value indicates a substantial undertaking.

What were the specific justifications for awarding this contract on a non-competitive (sole-source) basis?

The data indicates this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER', implying a sole-source award. Standard justifications for sole-source procurement often include situations where only one responsible source can provide the required supply or service, there is a public exigency, or the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed effort where it's not practical to recompete. Without further documentation from the Agency for International Development (USAID), the specific rationale remains undisclosed. This lack of transparency means the public cannot verify if competitive principles were bypassed appropriately.

What performance metrics or milestones were established for this road construction project, and how was progress measured?

The provided data does not contain information regarding specific performance metrics, milestones, or how progress was measured for this road construction project. For a contract of this duration and value, establishing clear deliverables, quality standards, and timelines is crucial. Effective oversight would involve regular reporting from the contractor, site inspections, and verification of work completed against agreed-upon specifications. The absence of this information in the summary data makes it difficult to assess the project's effectiveness and the contractor's adherence to requirements.

What is the historical spending pattern for road construction projects managed by the Agency for International Development (USAID) in Afghanistan?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending patterns for USAID road construction in Afghanistan. However, USAID has been a significant funder of infrastructure development in Afghanistan for many years, including numerous road projects aimed at improving connectivity, facilitating trade, and supporting economic growth. Historical spending would likely show a substantial and consistent allocation towards such projects, reflecting the strategic importance of infrastructure in the country's development and stability efforts. Analyzing broader USAID spending data would be necessary to identify trends, average project costs, and the scale of investment over time.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' contract for a long-term infrastructure project in a challenging environment?

A 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) contract, like the one used here, involves the contractor being reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. For a long-term infrastructure project in a challenging environment, risks include potential cost overruns if initial cost estimates are inaccurate or if unforeseen issues arise (e.g., material price fluctuations, difficult site conditions, security incidents). The contractor has less incentive to control costs compared to a fixed-price contract, as their fee is fixed regardless of the final cost. This necessitates robust government oversight to scrutinize costs, ensure efficiency, and manage scope changes effectively to protect taxpayer interests.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $178,369,630

Exercised Options: $178,369,630

Current Obligation: $178,369,630

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: AID306I000600517

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline