State Department awarded $27.4M for overseas construction, with 31 delivery orders under firm-fixed-price contracts

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,445,168 ($27.4M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2012-09-30

End Date: 2016-06-15

Contract Duration: 1,354 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 31

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $27.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of overseas construction projects. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The use of firm-fixed-price contracts shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Performance period spanned over three years, indicating a substantial project. 5. Construction services are critical for maintaining diplomatic facilities abroad. 6. The contract was awarded via delivery orders, suggesting task-based execution.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award of $27.4 million for commercial and institutional building construction over a period of approximately 1354 days (roughly 3.7 years) suggests a moderate annual spend. Without specific details on the scope of work for each delivery order, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract indicates that the pricing was established upfront, which can be advantageous for budget predictability. The number of delivery orders (31) suggests a potentially phased or modular approach to the construction work.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This typically leads to a broader range of proposals and potentially more competitive pricing. The presence of 31 delivery orders suggests that the initial contract served as a vehicle for multiple, distinct construction tasks over its performance period. The specific number of bidders for the overall contract or individual delivery orders is not provided, but the competition type implies a robust process.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve the quality of services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of State and its personnel, who receive improved or maintained infrastructure at overseas diplomatic posts. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing repairs, renovations, or new construction of facilities. The geographic impact is global, as overseas construction implies projects at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, project managers, and support staff involved in executing these projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the scope of work for each delivery order makes it difficult to fully assess value for money.
Undisclosed domestic awardees prevent analysis of contractor track record or potential conflicts of interest.
The duration of the contract (over 3 years) could lead to potential cost overruns if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially protecting the government from unexpected price increases.
Full and open competition suggests a deliberate effort to secure the best possible pricing and quality.
The use of delivery orders allows for flexibility in project execution and adaptation to evolving needs.

Sector Analysis

The commercial and institutional building construction sector is a significant part of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area often supports government infrastructure, including diplomatic facilities, administrative buildings, and operational sites. Benchmarking this contract's value requires comparison against similar overseas construction projects, which can be complex due to varying labor costs, material availability, and security requirements in different global locations. The Department of State's need for secure and functional facilities abroad drives consistent demand in this niche.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unknown. Without further information, it's difficult to assess whether small businesses were actively encouraged to participate or if they played a significant role as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's contracting officers and potentially its Office of Inspector General. The use of delivery orders allows for task-specific oversight. Transparency is limited by the lack of disclosed awardee information and detailed scope of work for each order. Accountability would be managed through contract performance reviews and adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Overseas Construction Projects
Worldwide Diplomatic Infrastructure
Federal Building and Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of transparency regarding awardees
Limited detail on scope of work per delivery order
Potential for cost overruns if scope changes significantly
Geopolitical risks inherent in overseas projects

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $27.4 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 $27.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-30. End: 2016-06-15.

What was the specific scope of work for each of the 31 delivery orders?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for each of the 31 delivery orders. This information is crucial for a granular assessment of the contract's value and performance. Typically, delivery orders would outline specific construction tasks, such as renovation of a particular building section, repair of HVAC systems, or minor new construction at a diplomatic post. Without these details, it's challenging to determine if the $27.4 million was efficiently utilized across the various tasks and if the projects met their intended objectives.

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

The data explicitly states that the domestic awardees are undisclosed. This lack of transparency prevents an analysis of the contractors' past performance, experience, and reliability in executing similar overseas construction projects. A contractor's track record is a key indicator of potential success and risk. Without this information, it is impossible to assess if the Department of State selected experienced and capable firms or if there were any potential performance concerns based on prior contract history.

How does the total contract value of $27.4 million compare to similar overseas construction projects managed by the State Department or other agencies?

Comparing the total contract value of $27.4 million requires access to a database of similar overseas construction contracts, including their scope, duration, and geographic location. Such projects are highly variable due to factors like security requirements, local labor costs, material transport, and the specific nature of the construction (e.g., new build vs. renovation). While $27.4 million over approximately 3.7 years (1354 days) suggests an average annual spend of roughly $7.4 million, this figure alone doesn't indicate over or under-spending without context on the scale and complexity of the work performed across the 31 delivery orders.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of these construction projects?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of these construction projects. Effective oversight typically involves defining measurable KPIs related to project timelines, budget adherence (within the fixed price), quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and stakeholder satisfaction (e.g., post management). Without knowing these KPIs, it is difficult to objectively assess whether the contractor(s) met the Department of State's performance expectations and delivered the required construction services effectively.

What is the historical spending pattern for overseas construction by the Department of State in the years surrounding this contract's performance period (2012-2016)?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific $27.4 million contract. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze the Department of State's budget allocations and actual expenditures for overseas construction over multiple fiscal years. This would involve examining trends in contract awards, average project sizes, and the overall demand for construction services at diplomatic facilities. Without this broader financial context, it's difficult to ascertain if this contract represented a typical investment, an increase, or a decrease in federal spending for such services during that period.

Were there any significant risks identified during the procurement or performance phases of this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The available data does not explicitly list any identified risks or mitigation strategies associated with this contract. However, common risks in overseas construction include security threats, logistical challenges in remote locations, unforeseen site conditions, political instability, and contractor performance issues. The firm-fixed-price contract structure inherently mitigates financial risk for the government by capping costs. Mitigation of other risks would typically involve robust contract management, clear communication protocols, security planning, and potentially performance bonds from the contractor.

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

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Offers Received: 31

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: $27,445,168

Exercised Options: $27,445,168

Current Obligation: $27,445,168

Contract Characteristics

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

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMMA11D0024

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline