State Department awards $20.3M for overseas engineering services, highlighting domestic contractor reliance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,260,351 ($20.3M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2014-03-24

End Date: 2015-03-31

Contract Duration: 372 days

Daily Burn Rate: $54.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $20.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in essential engineering support. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially robust bidding process. 3. Reliance on domestic awardees for overseas operations warrants further scrutiny. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but requires careful scope management. 5. The duration of the contract indicates a need for sustained engineering expertise. 6. Engineering services are critical for maintaining and developing overseas infrastructure.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $20.3 million for engineering services is substantial. Benchmarking against similar overseas engineering contracts is difficult without more specific details on the scope of work. However, the fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to manage costs, though the ultimate value for money depends on the quality and efficiency of the services delivered. The absence of disclosed domestic awardees makes direct price comparison challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors were likely invited to bid. This approach generally promotes a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service quality. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring a fair selection process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best possible price and quality for essential overseas engineering services.

Public Impact

U.S. diplomatic missions and personnel abroad benefit from improved infrastructure and operational support. Engineering services ensure the maintenance, repair, and potentially new construction of facilities in foreign countries. The contract supports the U.S. government's presence and operations in various overseas locations. It indirectly supports the U.S. engineering and construction workforce through domestic awardees.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of disclosed domestic awardees hinders transparency and accountability.
Potential for cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed under fixed-price.
Geographic concentration of services could create single points of failure if not managed.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a fair and potentially cost-effective procurement.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Longer contract duration allows for sustained support and relationship building with the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government functions, particularly those involving infrastructure development, maintenance, and operational support. Spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain and upgrade facilities, especially in challenging overseas environments. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and scale of engineering projects undertaken.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was likely made to larger firms capable of handling complex overseas operations. There is no information provided on subcontracting plans, making it difficult to assess the potential impact on the small business ecosystem. Further investigation into subcontracting opportunities would be necessary.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers responsible for overseas facilities and operations. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight. Transparency could be enhanced by disclosing the awardees and more detailed performance metrics. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any issues of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Overseas Building Operations
Department of State Facilities Management
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Global Infrastructure Support

Risk Flags

Lack of disclosed awardee information limits transparency.
Potential for cost overruns in fixed-price contracts for complex projects.
Overseas operations introduce unique logistical and security risks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $20.3 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 $20.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-03-24. End: 2015-03-31.

What specific types of engineering services were procured under this contract?

The contract specifies 'Engineering Services' (NAICS code 541330), which is a broad category. Typically, this could encompass a range of activities including architectural design, civil engineering, mechanical and electrical engineering, structural analysis, environmental engineering, and construction management. For overseas operations, these services are often related to the design, construction, renovation, and maintenance of U.S. embassy and consulate facilities, as well as other government installations abroad. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's statement of work, which is not provided here but would clarify whether it focused on new builds, repairs, specific systems (like HVAC or power), or security infrastructure.

How does the $20.3 million contract value compare to similar overseas engineering service contracts awarded by the State Department?

Direct comparison of the $20.3 million value is challenging without more specific data on the scope, duration, and geographic focus of other similar contracts. The State Department manages a vast portfolio of overseas facilities, and engineering needs can vary significantly. Contracts for major construction or renovation projects can easily run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, while smaller contracts might focus on specific technical assessments or localized repairs. This $20.3 million award appears to be a substantial commitment, likely covering a significant scope of work or a portfolio of projects over its 372-day duration. Benchmarking would require analyzing contracts with similar service descriptions and geographic coverage.

What are the primary risks associated with a fixed-price contract for overseas engineering services?

A primary risk with fixed-price contracts, especially for complex overseas engineering projects, is scope creep. If the project requirements change or expand beyond the initial agreement, the contractor may incur additional costs that are not covered, potentially leading to disputes or requests for contract modifications. Conversely, if the contractor underestimates costs or encounters unforeseen difficulties (e.g., difficult site conditions, supply chain issues, security challenges in the operating region), they bear the financial risk. For the government, the risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability if costs escalate, or that the initial price may have been inflated to account for perceived risks. Effective contract management and clear initial scope definition are crucial to mitigate these risks.

Given the 'full and open competition' award, what does this imply about the contractor's track record and capabilities?

Awarding a contract under 'full and open competition' implies that the selection process was designed to allow any qualified vendor to submit a bid. While this doesn't automatically guarantee a superior track record for the selected contractor, it suggests that they were among the most competitive in terms of price, technical approach, and potentially past performance, as evaluated against the solicitation's criteria. The government likely assessed proposals based on factors outlined in the solicitation, which often include experience with similar projects, technical expertise, management capability, and financial stability. The fact that they won in an open competition indicates they met these requirements and presented a compelling offer compared to other bidders.

How has historical spending on overseas engineering services by the State Department trended, and does this contract align with those trends?

Historical spending on overseas engineering services by the Department of State is generally driven by the need to maintain and upgrade its global diplomatic infrastructure, including embassies and consulates. Factors like aging facilities, evolving security requirements, and geopolitical shifts influence spending levels. Without access to specific historical spending data for this category, it's difficult to definitively state if this $20.3 million award aligns with trends. However, the State Department consistently invests significant resources in its facilities abroad. This contract appears to be a typical, albeit substantial, component of that ongoing investment, reflecting the continuous need for engineering expertise to support U.S. foreign policy objectives and personnel safety.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

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: $37,387,004

Exercised Options: $20,260,351

Current Obligation: $20,260,351

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMMA11D0074

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline