State Department's $115.6M contract for ordnance disposal in Iraq awarded to Acuity-Janus Global, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $115,627,854 ($115.6M)

Contractor: Acuity - Janus Global, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2016-03-31

End Date: 2019-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $105.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, ABANDONED EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (AXO), AND IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) DESTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES IN IRAQ. IGF::OT::IGF

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $115.6 million to ACUITY - JANUS GLOBAL, LLC for work described as: CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, ABANDONED EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (AXO), AND IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) DESTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES IN IRAQ. IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract focused on the destruction of conventional weapons, AXO, and IEDs, along with training and capacity building. 2. Services were delivered over a 3-year period, indicating a sustained effort in a critical security area. 3. The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting specific circumstances for limited bidding. 4. The use of Time and Materials pricing may introduce cost variability compared to fixed-price contracts. 5. The geographic focus on Iraq highlights the contract's role in post-conflict stabilization and security. 6. The awarding agency, Department of State, underscores the diplomatic and foreign policy implications of the services provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable service costs in similar high-risk environments. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to higher costs than fixed-price contracts if not managed closely. The total award amount of $115.6 million over three years suggests a significant investment in a complex and dangerous operational area. Further analysis would require understanding the scope of services delivered and the specific risks associated with ordnance disposal in Iraq.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation implies that while the competition was intended to be open, specific circumstances led to the exclusion of certain sources. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed in the provided data, but it suggests that not all potential offerors were considered. The limited nature of the competition may have impacted the level of price discovery and potentially led to higher costs for the government compared to a truly open and full competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition structure means taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing achievable through a broader bidding process. This could result in a less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Iraqi population and security forces, who receive enhanced safety through the removal of explosive threats. Services delivered include the destruction of dangerous ordnance and crucial training to build local capacity for future threat management. The geographic impact is concentrated in Iraq, addressing a critical post-conflict security need. Workforce implications include the employment of specialized personnel for ordnance disposal and training, potentially including both U.S. and local personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Limited competition may have reduced price competitiveness.
Complexity and inherent risks of ordnance disposal operations in Iraq.

Positive Signals

Addresses a critical security need in a volatile region.
Includes capacity-building and training components for long-term impact.
Awarded by the Department of State, indicating alignment with foreign policy objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Security and Defense Services' sector, specifically focusing on hazardous material remediation and specialized training. The market for such services is often niche, driven by government requirements in post-conflict zones or areas with legacy contamination. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found in contracts related to Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), demining, and hazardous waste management, often characterized by high risk, specialized expertise, and significant logistical challenges.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the contract was awarded to Acuity-Janus Global, LLC, and there is no indication of small business set-asides or significant subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the specialized nature of ordnance disposal and training may favor larger, established contractors with specific certifications and experience. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and potentially the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The contract's performance would be monitored through regular reporting, site visits, and adherence to the delivery order terms. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, but detailed operational oversight mechanisms are typically internal to the agency and contractor.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) programs
State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs programs
International Security Assistance programs
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) related security assistance

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to T&M contract type.
Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
High-risk operating environment (Iraq) presents security and logistical challenges.
Complexity of ordnance disposal requires specialized expertise and equipment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $115.6 million to ACUITY - JANUS GLOBAL, LLC. CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, ABANDONED EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (AXO), AND IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) DESTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES IN IRAQ. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACUITY - JANUS GLOBAL, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $115.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-03-31. End: 2019-03-31.

What specific expertise does Acuity-Janus Global, LLC possess in ordnance disposal and training in complex environments like Iraq?

Acuity-Janus Global, LLC, is a company specializing in global security and logistics, with a stated focus on supporting government and commercial clients in challenging environments. Their expertise typically includes base operations support, security services, and logistics, often involving personnel with military or specialized security backgrounds. For ordnance disposal and training, this would likely involve personnel certified in Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), hazardous materials handling, and potentially instructional design for security-related training. Their track record in similar contracts, particularly those involving the U.S. Department of State or Department of Defense in overseas locations, would be a key indicator of their capability to manage the risks and complexities associated with IED and AXO destruction in Iraq.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure compare to fixed-price contracts for this type of service in terms of cost-effectiveness for taxpayers?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts offer flexibility, allowing for adjustments in scope and effort as a project evolves. However, for taxpayers, T&M can be less cost-effective than fixed-price contracts, especially for services where the scope is well-defined. With T&M, the government pays for the actual labor hours and material costs incurred by the contractor, plus a predetermined fixed fee or overhead. This structure places the risk of cost overruns on the government. In contrast, fixed-price contracts shift the cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage resources efficiently to maximize profit. For ordnance disposal, where the volume and complexity of threats might be somewhat predictable, a fixed-price approach could potentially yield better cost certainty and value for taxpayers, provided the initial scope is accurately defined.

What are the primary risks associated with providing ordnance disposal and training services in Iraq, and how might they impact contract performance?

Providing ordnance disposal and training services in Iraq involves significant risks. These include the inherent danger of handling explosive materials, which poses a direct threat to personnel. Security risks are also paramount, given the potential for hostile actions against personnel and facilities. Logistical challenges are substantial, including transportation of equipment and personnel, establishing secure operating bases, and navigating complex local regulations and infrastructure. Political instability and evolving security conditions can disrupt operations and necessitate rapid adaptation. These risks can lead to delays, increased operational costs (especially under a T&M contract), potential personnel injuries or fatalities, and ultimately, impact the timely and effective completion of the contract objectives. Robust risk mitigation strategies, including comprehensive security protocols, detailed logistical planning, and strong relationships with local authorities, are crucial.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation imply about the procurement process and potential alternatives?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' suggests a procurement process that initially aimed for broad competition but ultimately excluded certain potential bidders. This typically occurs when specific requirements, such as unique capabilities, security clearances, or past performance in a highly specialized field, limit the pool of eligible contractors. While it's more competitive than a sole-source award, it's less competitive than unrestricted full and open competition. This implies that the government identified a need that could be met by multiple sources, but only a subset of those sources met specific, potentially stringent, criteria. Exploring alternatives might involve re-evaluating the necessity of the exclusionary criteria to broaden future competition or considering different contract vehicles if specialized capabilities are consistently scarce.

How has the Department of State historically funded and managed similar security and capacity-building contracts in post-conflict regions?

The Department of State, particularly through its Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) and Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT), has a history of funding and managing security and capacity-building contracts in post-conflict and high-risk regions. These contracts often support U.S. foreign policy objectives, aiming to stabilize regions, counter threats, and build the capabilities of partner nations. Funding mechanisms typically involve appropriations for foreign assistance, security cooperation, and diplomatic security. Management involves rigorous oversight, performance monitoring, and coordination with other U.S. government agencies and international partners. Historical spending patterns in this area show a consistent need for services related to security sector reform, demining, counter-IED efforts, and training, often awarded through competitive processes, though sometimes with specific source exclusions due to the specialized nature of the work.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Remediation and Other Waste Management Services › Remediation Services

Product/Service Code: SALVAGE SERVICES › DISPOSAL OF EXCESS/SURPLUS PROPERTY

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: EOD Technology Inc. (UEI: 078670677)

Address: 2229 OLD HWY 95, LENOIR CITY, TN, 37771

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $144,661,170

Exercised Options: $144,661,170

Current Obligation: $115,627,854

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMMA11D0103

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline