State Department's $23.6M Iraq Embassy Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Contract Awarded Non-Competitively

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,494,897 ($29.5M)

Contractor: Facilities Development Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2005-11-18

End Date: 2009-04-20

Contract Duration: 1,249 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.6K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PURCHASE AND ASSEMBLE VARIOUS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT TO US EMBASSY IRAQ.

Place of Performance

Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20190

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $29.5 million to FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION for work described as: PURCHASE AND ASSEMBLE VARIOUS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT TO US EMBASSY IRAQ. Key points: 1. Contract focused on procuring mechanical, electrical, and plumbing items for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. 2. Awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 3. The contract duration of 1249 days suggests a long-term need for these critical supplies. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the non-competitive nature limits price discovery. 5. The significant dollar value warrants scrutiny of the necessity and justification for sole-source procurement. 6. Geographic focus on Iraq highlights the logistical complexities and security considerations involved.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $23.6 million for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) items is substantial. Without comparable contract data for similar embassy support operations or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value for money. The non-competitive award mechanism, however, inherently limits the opportunity for price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs than a fully competed contract. The fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but the absence of competition is a significant concern.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not subject to a broad solicitation process. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of fulfilling the requirement, or in urgent situations. The lack of competition means that multiple bidders were not evaluated, and the government did not benefit from a range of proposals and pricing strategies. This significantly reduces the opportunity for price negotiation and potentially results in a higher price than if the contract had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The justification for a sole-source award needs to be robust to ensure funds were expended appropriately and that the government explored all viable options for competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. diplomatic operations at the Embassy in Iraq, ensuring functional infrastructure. Services delivered include the procurement and assembly of essential mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components. The geographic impact is specific to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, supporting its physical plant. Workforce implications are likely related to logistics, project management, and potentially installation support, though not explicitly detailed.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price scrutiny and potential savings.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source procurement.
Potential for cost overruns if pricing was not rigorously negotiated without competition.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost certainty.
Focus on essential infrastructure (MEP) for critical diplomatic facilities.
Long contract duration suggests a sustained need and commitment to embassy operations.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on the supply of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. This is a critical component of facility maintenance and development, particularly for high-security and complex environments like embassies. While the contract is for goods and assembly, it supports the broader construction and facilities management industry. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale MEP procurements for government facilities, especially those in challenging overseas locations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were a primary consideration during the initial award phase. Further analysis would be needed to determine if the prime contractor has any small business subcontracting plans or if small businesses were involved in any capacity, which is less probable given the non-competitive nature.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) or equivalent facilities management entities. Accountability measures would typically involve contract performance monitoring, delivery schedules, and quality control of the procured items. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award; justifications for non-competitive procurements are usually available but require specific requests. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Embassy Construction and Maintenance Contracts
Overseas Facilities Support
Department of State Procurement
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Supplies

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of detailed justification for sole-source
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition
Limited transparency on specific items procured and their costs

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $29.5 million to FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. PURCHASE AND ASSEMBLE VARIOUS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ITEMS FOR SHIPMENT TO US EMBASSY IRAQ.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-11-18. End: 2009-04-20.

What was the specific justification provided by the Department of State for awarding this contract non-competitively?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the non-competitive award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified under circumstances such as urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities of a single source, or when a public interest determination is made. For a contract of this magnitude supporting embassy operations, the justification would likely relate to the specialized nature of the MEP requirements, the security environment in Iraq, or the need for continuity with existing systems. A thorough review of the contract file and associated documentation would be necessary to ascertain the precise rationale provided by the Department of State at the time of award.

How does the unit cost of the MEP items procured compare to market rates or similar government contracts?

Benchmarking the unit cost for the MEP items procured under this $23.6 million contract is challenging without specific itemization and quantity data. The contract is for the "purchase and assemble various mechanical, electrical and plumbing items," suggesting a broad scope rather than standardized units. Furthermore, the non-competitive award limits the ability to compare pricing against bids received from other vendors. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need a detailed list of the items purchased, their specifications, quantities, and the price paid for each. This information, coupled with market research data for similar items procured by other agencies or in the commercial sector, would be required for a robust value assessment.

What were the primary risks associated with fulfilling this contract in Iraq, and how were they mitigated?

Executing a contract involving the procurement and shipment of MEP items to Iraq presents several inherent risks. These include logistical challenges related to transportation and customs, security risks for personnel and shipments, potential delays due to the volatile political and security environment, and the risk of damage or loss during transit. Given the nature of the work, it's probable that Facilities Development Corporation had to implement robust security protocols, contingency planning for supply chain disruptions, and potentially utilize specialized logistics providers experienced in high-risk environments. The fixed-price contract type might also imply that the contractor bore a significant portion of these risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for MEP supplies for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and how does this contract compare?

The provided data only details this single contract award of $23.6 million from November 2005 to April 2009. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need access to procurement data for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq covering previous and subsequent periods, specifically for MEP supplies and related services. Without this broader context, it's impossible to determine if this contract represents a typical expenditure, an increase, or a decrease in spending for such items. Analyzing prior contracts, their values, durations, and award types would be crucial for establishing a baseline and identifying trends in the State Department's investment in embassy infrastructure.

What performance metrics were used to evaluate the success of Facilities Development Corporation in fulfilling this contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics used to evaluate Facilities Development Corporation. However, for a contract involving the "purchase and assemble various mechanical, electrical and plumbing items for shipment," typical performance metrics would likely include on-time delivery of goods, adherence to specifications and quality standards, accuracy in assembly, and successful shipment to the designated location (U.S. Embassy Iraq). Contract clauses often detail requirements for quality assurance and acceptance testing. The Department of State would have had mechanisms to track these aspects, potentially through receiving reports, inspection records, and formal acceptance of the delivered items.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1808B MICHAEL FARADAY CT, RESTON, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,494,897

Exercised Options: $29,494,897

Current Obligation: $29,494,897

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SALMEC05D0059

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline