DoD Awards $18.7M for Camp Commando Phase II Construction to Foreign Contractor
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $18,710,513 ($18.7M)
Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2010-03-25
End Date: 2011-09-29
Contract Duration: 553 days
Daily Burn Rate: $33.8K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF CAMP COMMANDO PHASE II
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $18.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF CAMP COMMANDO PHASE II Key points: 1. Significant investment in base infrastructure. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about competition and potential cost savings. 3. Foreign awardee may present unique logistical and oversight challenges. 4. Construction sector spending is substantial, but this specific award lacks transparency.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract value of $18.7 million for construction is substantial. Without comparable contract data or a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to assess if this price is reasonable or if it represents good value for taxpayer dollars.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating a lack of competition. This method limits price discovery and may result in higher costs for the government compared to a competitive procurement.
Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition suggests that taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for this construction project.
Public Impact
Impacts military readiness and personnel support through infrastructure development. Raises concerns about the use of taxpayer funds when competition is absent. Highlights potential challenges in overseeing foreign contractors for domestic infrastructure projects.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award
- Foreign awardee
- Lack of transparency in pricing
Positive Signals
- Addresses critical infrastructure needs
Sector Analysis
The Department of Defense is a major consumer of construction services. While the overall construction sector sees significant investment, sole-source awards like this one can obscure benchmarks and inflate costs.
Small Business Impact
This award does not appear to involve small businesses, as it was a sole-source award to a foreign entity. There is no indication of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
The sole-source nature of this award warrants close oversight to ensure the contractor meets all requirements and that funds are used appropriately. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award is crucial.
Related Government Programs
- Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award lacks competition.
- Potential for inflated costs due to lack of price discovery.
- Oversight challenges with foreign awardee.
- Limited transparency on contract justification.
- No small business participation evident.
Tags
commercial-and-institutional-building-co, department-of-defense, dca, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $18.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. CONSTRUCTION OF CAMP COMMANDO PHASE II
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $18.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-03-25. End: 2011-09-29.
What was the justification for awarding this significant construction contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative competitive strategies considered?
The justification for a sole-source award is critical for understanding why competition was bypassed. Agencies typically cite reasons such as urgency, unique capabilities, or lack of available sources. Without this information, it's impossible to determine if the government missed opportunities for better pricing or innovation that a competitive process might have yielded.
What specific risks are associated with awarding a construction contract of this magnitude to a foreign entity, particularly regarding quality control and dispute resolution?
Awarding construction contracts to foreign entities can introduce risks related to differing labor laws, material standards, and logistical complexities. Ensuring consistent quality control and establishing clear mechanisms for dispute resolution across international borders can be more challenging and costly, potentially impacting project timelines and final outcomes.
How does the absence of competitive bidding impact the overall value for money achieved in this $18.7 million construction project?
The absence of competitive bidding significantly hinders the ability to assess value for money. Competition typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. A sole-source award means the government accepted the price offered without the benefit of market forces, raising concerns that taxpayers may have overpaid for the construction services rendered.
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: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: W5J9JE10R0003
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08
Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $25,942,513
Exercised Options: $18,710,513
Current Obligation: $18,710,513
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-03-25
Current End Date: 2011-09-29
Potential End Date: 2011-09-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2013-03-22
More Contracts from Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
- Additional Services Mca-Funded — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W27p4a05c0002} Bottled Water — $480.1M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gy007c0053} Rule of LAW — $372.4M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gdw07d4021} Reconstruction Security Support Services (rsss) — $188.8M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gxy06c0094} AL Qudas GAS Turbine Expansion — $169.5M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)