DoD's $36.4M Construction Contract for RMTC Mazar-e-Sharif Awarded Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,401,884 ($36.4M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-31

End Date: 2013-10-14

Contract Duration: 1,232 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: RMTC MAZAR-E-SHARIF

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $36.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: RMTC MAZAR-E-SHARIF Key points: 1. The contract value of $36.4 million for construction services in Afghanistan is significant. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a broad market approach. 3. The contract duration of 1232 days indicates a long-term project. 4. The awardee is listed as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', which lacks specificity and could be a risk.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking construction costs in Afghanistan is challenging due to unique market conditions and risks. The fixed price contract aims to control costs, but the final price relative to market value is difficult to ascertain without more granular data on the scope of work and local pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which typically promotes competitive pricing. However, the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' designation raises questions about the transparency and depth of the competition and whether the best possible price was achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayer funds were used for a large construction project in a high-risk environment. While competition was sought, the ultimate value for money and potential for cost overruns due to the location and awardee ambiguity are key considerations.

Public Impact

Significant taxpayer investment in infrastructure development in a foreign operational theater. Potential for economic impact in the region through construction activities and employment. Questions surrounding the transparency and specific identity of the awardee could impact public trust. Long-term project duration implies sustained resource allocation and oversight needs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Ambiguous awardee identification ('MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES')
Geographic location (Afghanistan) presents inherent security and logistical risks
Long contract duration increases exposure to changing conditions and potential cost creep

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition
Firm fixed price contract type aims to control costs

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. Construction projects in overseas contingency operations often carry higher costs and risks compared to domestic projects due to logistical challenges, security requirements, and local market conditions.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate any specific participation or set-aside for small businesses. Given the nature and scale of the project, it is unlikely that small businesses were primary awardees, though they may have participated as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight of construction projects in overseas locations is critical and complex. The Department of the Army is responsible, but the effectiveness of oversight is influenced by the challenges of operating in Afghanistan and the clarity of the awardee's identity.

Related Government Programs

Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Ambiguous Awardee Identification
Geographic Risk (Afghanistan)
Potential for Subcontracting Issues
Long Project Duration
Lack of Small Business Participation Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $36.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. RMTC MAZAR-E-SHARIF

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 $36.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-31. End: 2013-10-14.

What specific factors contributed to the $36.4 million cost for this construction project, and how do they compare to similar projects in comparable environments?

The $36.4 million cost likely reflects a combination of materials, labor, transportation, security, and overhead specific to operating in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. Factors such as the remoteness of the location, the need for specialized security protocols, and the fluctuating costs of imported materials and skilled labor in a conflict zone would drive up expenses compared to domestic projects. Benchmarking is difficult without detailed project scope and local market data, but costs in such environments are generally higher.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding a large construction contract to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', and what mitigation strategies were employed?

The primary risks include lack of transparency in vetting the awardee's capabilities, financial stability, and ethical standards, potentially leading to substandard work, fraud, or security vulnerabilities. Mitigation strategies might have included rigorous performance bonds, detailed contract clauses, and enhanced oversight, but the ambiguity itself suggests potential weaknesses in the procurement process and accountability.

How effectively did the 'full and open competition' process ensure value for taxpayer money, given the unique challenges of the operating environment and the nature of the awardee?

While 'full and open competition' is designed to maximize value, its effectiveness here is questionable due to the ambiguous awardee. It suggests that either the pool of qualified bidders was limited, or the evaluation process did not sufficiently differentiate bidders on critical factors beyond price. The long duration and significant cost indicate a need for robust performance monitoring to ensure the intended value is realized despite these potential procurement process limitations.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W5J9JE10R0054

Offers Received: 26

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 and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $36,401,884

Exercised Options: $36,401,884

Current Obligation: $36,401,884

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline