DoD's $269M DynCorp contract for Afghan security forces support lacked competition, raising value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $269,386,578 ($269.4M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-12-31

End Date: 2020-02-16

Contract Duration: 1,873 days

Daily Burn Rate: $143.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: AWARD OF BRIDGE CONTRACT TO DYNCORP FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR ADIVISING AND MENTORING OF THE AFGHAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY.

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $269.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: AWARD OF BRIDGE CONTRACT TO DYNCORP FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR ADIVISING AND MENTORING OF THE AFGHAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY. Key points: 1. The contract's significant value suggests a substantial investment in advisory and mentoring services. 2. Lack of competition indicates potential for higher costs and reduced innovation. 3. The extended duration of the contract warrants scrutiny of ongoing necessity and performance. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs but requires careful oversight of deliverables. 5. Performance context is critical given the complex and evolving security environment in Afghanistan. 6. Sector positioning is within defense consulting, a critical but often high-risk area.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging due to its specific context and lack of comparable publicly disclosed data for similar large-scale advisory roles in conflict zones. The total award amount of over $269 million over approximately five years indicates a significant investment. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to assess if the pricing reflects fair market value or if taxpayers received optimal value for the services rendered. The absence of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and the efficiency of resource allocation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically justified when only one vendor possesses the necessary specialized capabilities, or in urgent situations. However, the lack of competition limits the government's ability to solicit multiple bids, potentially leading to higher prices and less favorable terms than might be achieved through a competitive process. The absence of bidders means price discovery was not driven by market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in taxpayers paying a premium for goods or services, as the government does not benefit from the cost-saving pressures inherent in a competitive bidding environment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Afghan Ministry of Defense and Afghan National Army, receiving advisory and mentoring support. Services delivered include critical advice and mentorship aimed at strengthening Afghan security forces. The geographic impact is concentrated within Afghanistan, supporting national security objectives. Workforce implications involve the deployment of specialized personnel to a challenging operational environment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source awards can reduce transparency and accountability.
The extended duration of the contract raises questions about long-term necessity and potential for vendor lock-in.
Performance metrics and oversight effectiveness are crucial given the high stakes and complex environment.

Positive Signals

The contract aims to provide essential support to a key partner nation's security forces.
The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty for the government.
DynCorp has experience in providing similar services in complex environments.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. This sector is characterized by specialized expertise and often involves high-value contracts. The market for defense advisory and mentoring services in post-conflict or developing nations is niche and often dominated by a few experienced contractors. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique geopolitical context and the specific nature of the services provided to Afghan security forces.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and there is no specific information on subcontracting plans (sb: false, st: ''). This suggests that large businesses were likely the primary or sole recipients of this award. The lack of small business involvement means potential opportunities for smaller firms to contribute to this significant defense initiative were not realized, potentially limiting the broader impact on the small business defense ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense and Department of the Army contracting officers, along with program managers responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance. Given the sole-source nature and the operational environment, robust oversight is critical to ensure accountability and value for money. Transparency may be limited due to the non-competitive award and the sensitive nature of the services. Inspector General jurisdiction would likely apply to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Security Force Assistance Brigades
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
Foreign Military Sales
Department of Defense Consulting Services
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) support contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Transparency
Performance Monitoring Challenges in Complex Environments

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $269.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). AWARD OF BRIDGE CONTRACT TO DYNCORP FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR ADIVISING AND MENTORING OF THE AFGHAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $269.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-12-31. End: 2020-02-16.

What is DynCorp's track record with similar large-scale advisory contracts, particularly in complex international environments?

DynCorp International has a significant history of providing aviation, logistics, and technical support services to government agencies, including extensive work in Afghanistan and other complex operational theaters. They have been involved in numerous large contracts related to security force training and support for various nations. While their experience is extensive, the scale and specific nature of advisory and mentoring for a national ministry, as in this case, require detailed examination of past performance metrics, successful outcomes, and any documented challenges or controversies associated with similar engagements. Publicly available data often highlights contract awards but less frequently provides granular details on the effectiveness and efficiency of the services rendered over the contract's lifecycle.

How does the $269 million award compare to other government spending on advisory and mentoring services for foreign security forces?

Comparing this $269 million award requires careful consideration of the specific context, duration, and scope of services. Large-scale advisory and mentoring contracts for foreign security forces can vary dramatically in cost depending on the recipient nation's needs, the complexity of the security environment, and the duration of the engagement. While $269 million over approximately five years is substantial, it may be within the expected range for comprehensive, long-term support to a nation's defense apparatus, especially in a high-risk environment like Afghanistan. However, without direct, comparable contracts for similar services to similarly situated nations, a precise benchmark is difficult. The lack of competition for this specific contract further complicates a direct value-for-money comparison.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude for advisory services?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude include potential overpricing due to the absence of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize service delivery, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Taxpayers may not receive the best possible value for their investment. Furthermore, sole-source contracts can sometimes indicate a lack of market research or an over-reliance on a single vendor, which can create vulnerabilities if that vendor experiences performance issues or financial instability. In a critical area like advising foreign security forces, these risks are amplified due to the strategic importance and potential impact on national security.

What evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of DynCorp's advisory and mentoring services under this contract?

Specific evidence regarding the effectiveness of DynCorp's advisory and mentoring services under this particular contract is not readily available in the provided data. Effectiveness would typically be measured through performance metrics outlined in the contract, independent assessments of the Afghan Ministry of Defense and National Army's capabilities, and the overall progress towards security objectives. Given the complex and often opaque nature of operations in Afghanistan, detailed public reporting on the direct impact of such advisory contracts can be limited. Post-award reviews, Inspector General reports, or program evaluations would be the most likely sources for such information, but these are not included in the summary data.

How has federal spending on defense advisory and mentoring services evolved over the past decade, and where does this contract fit?

Federal spending on defense advisory and mentoring services has fluctuated significantly over the past decade, often driven by geopolitical events and U.S. foreign policy objectives. Following major conflicts or interventions, spending typically increases to support capacity-building efforts in partner nations. This $269 million DynCorp contract, awarded during a period of continued U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, represents a substantial investment in such capacity-building. It fits within a broader category of security cooperation and assistance programs aimed at enhancing the capabilities of allied and partner security forces. Trends in this spending area are influenced by the perceived threat landscape, the political will to engage abroad, and the effectiveness of previous programs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

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: $270,386,578

Exercised Options: $269,386,578

Current Obligation: $269,386,578

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline