Department of Defense awards $31.8M for SITE ELECTRICAL services to foreign entities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,778,514 ($31.8M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-02-16

End Date: 2012-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,018 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 23

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SITE ELECTRICAL

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: SITE ELECTRICAL Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of industrial building construction. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. Contract duration of over 3 years indicates a significant project timeline. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Awardee is a foreign entity, potentially impacting oversight and local economic benefits. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $31.8 million for industrial building construction is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale construction projects within the Department of Defense is challenging without more specific project details. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the initial pricing was intended to be comprehensive. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns makes a precise value-for-money assessment difficult, but the competitive nature of the award implies a degree of price discovery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 23 bids suggests a robust competitive environment for this type of industrial building construction. A high number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood that the government receives the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down prices and ensured that the government secured services at a market-competitive rate.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, receiving essential site electrical infrastructure. Services delivered include industrial building construction, crucial for operational readiness. Geographic impact is likely within a specific military installation, though not detailed. Workforce implications include skilled labor for construction and electrical trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to foreign entities may complicate oversight and payment processes.
Lack of specific project details hinders a thorough assessment of technical performance.
The long contract duration could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost adjustments if not managed tightly.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a competitive market and potentially good pricing.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The large number of bidders indicates significant interest and capability in the market.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction and facilities maintenance sector, specifically focusing on electrical infrastructure for industrial buildings. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of such services, often requiring specialized construction to meet unique operational needs. Market size for defense-related construction is substantial, with numerous firms capable of undertaking large-scale projects. This award represents a significant investment in maintaining and upgrading military infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award to foreign entities further reduces the likelihood of direct small business participation within the primary contract. This means the direct economic benefit to the U.S. small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed budget. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data, but detailed performance metrics and oversight reports are not publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Operations Support
Facilities Engineering
Electrical Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Foreign awardee may present oversight challenges.
Lack of specific project details limits detailed value analysis.
Potential for scope creep given the contract duration.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. SITE ELECTRICAL

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 $31.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-02-16. End: 2012-11-30.

What is the track record of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' with the Department of Defense?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is a broad category and does not refer to a single entity. It suggests that the award was made to one or more foreign companies. Without knowing the specific entity or entities, it is impossible to assess their individual track records with the Department of Defense. Generally, foreign contractors are vetted, but their performance history can vary widely. Further investigation would require identifying the specific awardee(s) to review their past performance, any past issues, and their overall reliability in fulfilling government contracts.

How does the $31.8 million cost compare to similar industrial building construction contracts?

Comparing the $31.8 million cost requires detailed information about the scope, complexity, and location of the 'SITE ELECTRICAL' project. Industrial building construction costs can vary significantly based on factors like size, materials, specialized equipment installation, and security requirements. While $31.8 million is a substantial sum, it could represent good value for a large, complex facility. Benchmarking against similar projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would necessitate access to detailed project specifications and cost breakdowns, which are not provided in the summary data. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with 23 bids suggests market forces were at play, likely pushing the price towards a competitive level.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding a large construction contract to foreign entities?

Awarding a large construction contract to foreign entities presents several potential risks. These can include challenges in oversight and quality assurance due to geographical distance and differing regulatory environments. Payment processing might be more complex, and enforcing contract terms or seeking remedies for non-performance could be more difficult. There's also the risk of currency fluctuations impacting the final cost if payments are not fixed in a stable currency. Furthermore, using foreign contractors may limit opportunities for U.S. small businesses and potentially impact domestic job creation related to the project. However, foreign awardees may also bring specialized expertise or cost advantages.

How effective is a fixed-price contract type in managing costs for large construction projects?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for managing costs in large construction projects when the scope of work is well-defined and understood from the outset. It shifts the primary risk of cost overruns to the contractor, providing the government with cost certainty. The contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, incentivizing them to manage their own costs efficiently. However, if the scope is not clearly defined or unforeseen issues arise, contractors may be less willing to absorb additional costs, potentially leading to disputes or a reluctance to perform work outside the narrowly defined scope. Careful initial planning and clear contract language are crucial for FFP success in construction.

What does the number of bidders (23) indicate about the market for industrial building construction services?

A total of 23 bidders for this industrial building construction contract strongly indicates a competitive and robust market. This high number suggests that there are numerous qualified companies capable of undertaking such projects and willing to compete for Department of Defense contracts. A competitive market typically benefits the government by fostering lower prices, higher quality, and greater innovation. It reduces the risk of contractor lock-in and provides the agency with a wider pool of potential partners for future requirements. The significant interest also implies that the contract's terms and anticipated work were attractive to a broad range of potential suppliers.

Are there specific performance metrics or quality standards associated with this contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics or quality standards for this 'SITE ELECTRICAL' contract. However, for any Department of Defense construction contract, especially one of this magnitude, stringent performance and quality standards are typically embedded within the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). These usually include adherence to building codes, industry standards (e.g., NEC for electrical work), safety regulations, and specific project milestones. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is responsible for monitoring contractor performance against these standards throughout the contract duration. Failure to meet these metrics could result in contract remedies, including financial penalties or termination.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W917PM09R0111

Offers Received: 23

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,778,514

Exercised Options: $31,778,514

Current Obligation: $31,778,514

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline