State Department awarded $26.2M for overseas construction, a significant investment in infrastructure

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,193,076 ($26.2M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2010-01-01

End Date: 2013-04-23

Contract Duration: 1,208 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $26.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. The contract value represents a substantial commitment to infrastructure development in overseas locations. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are unclear due to undisclosed domestic awardees. 3. The duration of the contract (1208 days) suggests a complex and lengthy project. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but potential for overruns exists. 5. The exclusion of sources in the competition process warrants further investigation into fairness and value. 6. The lack of specific product/service codes makes detailed benchmarking difficult.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without knowing the specific scope of work and the location of the construction. The total award of $26.2 million over approximately three years indicates a significant project. However, without comparable projects or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents excellent value for money. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but the complexity of overseas construction can introduce unforeseen expenses.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The number of bidders is not specified, making it hard to gauge the true level of competition. This limited competition could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs than a truly open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources raises concerns about whether taxpayers received the best possible price. A more open competition might have driven down costs through increased bidder participation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of State and its personnel requiring improved overseas facilities. The services delivered involve commercial and institutional building construction, crucial for diplomatic and operational presence abroad. The geographic impact is overseas, supporting U.S. government operations in foreign territories. Workforce implications include potential job creation for construction workers and related support staff, both domestically and potentially locally in the host country.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition due to exclusion of sources may have inflated costs.
Lack of transparency regarding domestic awardees hinders full assessment of contractor suitability.
The long contract duration increases the risk of cost overruns and scope creep.
The nature of overseas construction presents inherent logistical and security risks.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost control predictability.
The contract supports essential infrastructure for U.S. government operations abroad.
The award signifies a commitment to maintaining and improving critical facilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building. The market for overseas construction services for government entities is specialized, often requiring contractors with experience in navigating international regulations, security protocols, and logistical challenges. Benchmarking against domestic construction projects is difficult due to these unique factors. The total federal spending on construction services is substantial, but this specific niche represents a smaller, more targeted segment.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Without information on subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting awards, it's difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem. Typically, large construction contracts offer subcontracting opportunities, but the limited competition and undisclosed awardees make it uncertain if small businesses were significantly involved.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for overseas construction contracts typically involve project managers from the contracting agency (Department of State in this case), potentially augmented by third-party inspectors. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and the firm-fixed-price structure. Transparency is often limited for contracts involving undisclosed awardees and specific overseas locations due to security and proprietary concerns. Inspector General jurisdiction would likely apply to ensure proper use of funds and prevent fraud.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Overseas Building Operations
Military Construction Projects
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Lack of transparency regarding awardees.
Potential for cost overruns on long-duration overseas projects.
Unclear specific scope of work.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $26.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-01. End: 2013-04-23.

What specific types of commercial and institutional buildings were constructed or renovated under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' but does not specify the exact types of buildings. This could range from administrative offices, housing facilities for personnel, security infrastructure, or specialized operational centers. Understanding the specific nature of the construction is crucial for assessing its necessity, complexity, and value. Without this detail, it's challenging to compare costs or evaluate the project's contribution to the Department of State's mission effectiveness.

What were the primary locations for this overseas construction?

The data specifies the spending is 'OVERSEAS CONTRACT' but does not provide the specific countries or regions where the construction took place. The location is a critical factor in assessing contract value due to varying labor costs, material availability, logistical challenges, security requirements, and local regulatory environments. Construction in high-risk or remote areas typically incurs higher costs than in more stable, accessible regions. Knowing the locations would allow for more accurate benchmarking against similar projects in comparable geopolitical and economic contexts.

Who were the domestic awardees, and what is their track record in overseas construction?

The data states 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', which prevents an assessment of the contractors' track records. For a contract of this magnitude ($26.2 million) involving overseas construction, the experience, financial stability, and past performance of the awardees are paramount. Understanding their history with similar projects, particularly in challenging overseas environments, would provide insight into the likelihood of successful project completion, adherence to budget, and overall value for money. The lack of disclosure here represents a significant gap in transparency and accountability.

What was the rationale for excluding certain sources from the competition?

The contract type is 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This implies that while the initial solicitation was broad, specific criteria or circumstances led to the exclusion of some potential bidders. Reasons for such exclusions can range from specific technical requirements, security clearances, past performance issues with certain contractors, or even national security considerations. Without further documentation or explanation from the awarding agency, the precise rationale remains unclear, making it difficult to determine if the exclusion was justified and if it potentially limited competitive pricing for taxpayers.

How does the contract duration of 1208 days compare to similar overseas construction projects?

A contract duration of 1208 days (approximately 3 years and 4 months) is substantial for a construction project. The length suggests a project of significant scale, complexity, or one involving phased development. Comparing this duration to similar overseas construction projects would require access to a database of comparable contracts, including their scope, location, and timeline. Generally, longer durations can increase the risk of cost escalation due to inflation, changes in material costs, and potential project delays. However, for large-scale infrastructure, such durations might be standard if the project involves extensive planning, multiple phases, or challenging site conditions.

What specific oversight and accountability measures were in place for this contract?

Specific oversight and accountability measures are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, for large overseas construction contracts, oversight would involve dedicated project managers, site inspectors, regular progress reports, and adherence to strict quality control standards. Accountability would be enforced through contractual clauses, performance metrics, and potential penalties for non-compliance. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a baseline for accountability regarding cost. However, the effectiveness of these measures depends heavily on the diligence of the contracting agency's oversight team and the clarity of the contract's performance requirements.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,193,076

Exercised Options: $26,193,076

Current Obligation: $26,193,076

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: SUPPLIES OR SERVICES PURSUANT TO FAR 12.102(F)

Timeline