Department of the Army awarded $28M for design and site development, with 26 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,964,710 ($28.0M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-01-26

End Date: 2018-09-28

Contract Duration: 2,802 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN PROG./ SITE DEV./FACILITIES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.0 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: DESIGN PROG./ SITE DEV./FACILITIES Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of design and site development services. 2. Strong competition with 26 bids suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. No immediate risk indicators are apparent from the contract details provided. 4. The contract duration of over 7 years indicates a long-term project requirement. 5. This contract falls within the broader Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $28 million for design and site development over a multi-year period seems aligned with industry standards for large-scale construction projects. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense contracts for facilities design and site preparation would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure generally offers cost certainty, but the final cost can be influenced by the complexity of the design and site conditions encountered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 26 distinct bids received. This high level of participation indicates a robust and accessible market for the required design and site development services. The significant number of bidders suggests that the solicitation was well-publicized and that multiple capable firms were interested in undertaking the work, which typically fosters competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A high number of bidders in a full and open competition generally leads to more competitive pricing, potentially resulting in cost savings for taxpayers. It ensures that the government is likely to receive proposals that reflect market rates and efficient service delivery.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, which will receive updated facilities and site infrastructure. Services delivered include architectural design, engineering, and site preparation for unspecified facilities. The geographic impact is localized to the site where the facilities will be developed, likely a military installation. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for architects, engineers, construction planners, and related trades during the design and potential subsequent construction phases.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in design and site development over the extended contract duration.
Uncertainty regarding the specific end-use facilities and their long-term operational requirements.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions are encountered during development.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating broad market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration allows for phased development and potential integration with future projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on the design and site development phases. This sector is characterized by a wide range of firms, from large engineering and architectural conglomerates to specialized site preparation companies. The market size for federal construction and design services is substantial, driven by ongoing infrastructure needs and modernization efforts across various government agencies. This contract represents a typical investment in preparing for new or upgraded facilities.

Small Business Impact

While the contract was awarded under full and open competition, there is no explicit indication of a small business set-aside. The large contract value and scope suggest that prime contractors may be larger firms, but there is potential for subcontracting opportunities for small businesses in specialized areas of design, surveying, or site preparation. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified design and site development services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and progress reports may be internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Architectural and Engineering Services
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related projects
Federal Facilities Design and Planning

Risk Flags

Potential for undisclosed foreign involvement.
Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or changing requirements.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can shift risk of unforeseen conditions to the contractor, requiring careful management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.0 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). DESIGN PROG./ SITE DEV./FACILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FOREIGN 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 $28.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-01-26. End: 2018-09-28.

What specific types of facilities were planned for this design and site development contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact types of facilities intended for this contract. The scope is described as 'DESIGN PROG./ SITE DEV./FACILITIES,' indicating a broad range of possibilities from administrative buildings and barracks to specialized operational structures or infrastructure upgrades. To understand the full impact and context, further details on the project's purpose, such as whether it's for new construction, modernization, or expansion of existing military installations, would be necessary. This information is crucial for assessing the strategic alignment and long-term utility of the investment.

How does the contract's duration of 2802 days (approximately 7.7 years) compare to similar federal design and site development projects?

A contract duration of nearly eight years for design and site development is relatively long, suggesting a complex, multi-phased project or a program of work rather than a single, discrete task. Typical federal contracts for design services might range from a few months to a couple of years, while site development can vary significantly based on scale. Projects of this length often involve extensive planning, environmental reviews, phased construction approvals, and potentially integration with other long-term base development plans. Benchmarking against other large-scale military construction or infrastructure programs would reveal if this duration is standard for comparable undertakings or if it indicates unique project complexities or extended timelines.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' designation?

The 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' designation, while not explicitly detailed here, can introduce several risks. It may imply that a portion of the work was subcontracted to or performed by foreign entities, potentially leading to challenges in oversight, intellectual property protection, and adherence to U.S. security standards. Depending on the nature of the undisclosed foreign involvement, there could be risks related to supply chain security, compliance with export controls, or geopolitical considerations. Without further disclosure, it's difficult to quantify the specific risks, but it warrants careful monitoring by the contracting agency to ensure all contractual obligations and national security interests are met.

Given the firm-fixed-price contract type, what mechanisms are in place to manage potential cost increases due to unforeseen site conditions?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are designed to provide cost certainty, meaning the contractor agrees to a set price regardless of their actual costs. However, unforeseen site conditions are a common challenge in construction. While the FFP structure aims to place this risk on the contractor, contracts often include clauses for 'differing site conditions.' If the contractor encounters conditions materially different from those indicated in the contract or ordinarily encountered, they may be entitled to an equitable adjustment in price and/or time. The contract's specific language regarding differing site conditions, the process for notification and claim submission, and the agency's review process are critical oversight mechanisms.

How does the number of bids (26) influence the perceived value for money in this contract?

Receiving 26 bids for this contract is a strong positive signal regarding competition and potential value for money. A large number of bidders typically indicates that the market is healthy, the opportunity is attractive, and the solicitation was well-structured to encourage participation. This level of competition generally drives down prices as contractors vie for the award. It suggests that the government likely received a range of proposals, increasing the probability that the selected offer represented a competitive price for the scope of work. This contrasts sharply with sole-source or limited-competition scenarios where price discovery is less robust.

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: W5J9JE10R0112

Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,964,710

Exercised Options: $27,964,710

Current Obligation: $27,964,710

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline