Department of the Army awarded $26.5M for site development, with contract details for foreign awardees undisclosed

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,540,057 ($26.5M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-03-28

End Date: 2013-09-27

Contract Duration: 914 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SITE DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.5 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: SITE DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS Key points: 1. The contract value of $26.5 million for site development and improvements represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. The use of a definitive contract with a firm fixed price suggests a clear scope of work and cost control measures. 3. The duration of 914 days indicates a substantial project requiring long-term planning and execution. 4. The absence of specific details regarding foreign awardees raises questions about transparency and oversight. 5. The contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction category, indicating a focus on physical infrastructure development.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of specific details on the scope of 'site development/improvements' and the undisclosed nature of foreign awardees. Without comparable projects or a breakdown of services rendered, assessing value for money is difficult. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but the total amount suggests a substantial undertaking where detailed cost analysis would be beneficial.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. However, the number of bidders is not specified, and the undisclosed nature of foreign awardees complicates a full assessment of the competitive landscape. A robust competition typically drives down prices and ensures best value, but the lack of transparency here limits definitive conclusions.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages a wider pool of bidders, potentially leading to more competitive pricing. However, the lack of transparency regarding foreign awardees could obscure the true extent of competition and its impact on the final price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the entities involved in the site development and improvements, including construction firms and material suppliers. The services delivered include the physical transformation and enhancement of a specific site, potentially for military or operational use. The geographic impact is localized to the site where the development is taking place, though the specific location is not provided. Workforce implications would include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and related trades during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding foreign awardees and their specific contributions.
Undisclosed details about the scope of 'site development/improvements' make value assessment difficult.
Limited information on the number of bidders and the specific competitive dynamics.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Significant investment in infrastructure development, potentially enhancing operational capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building and renovation of non-residential structures. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government infrastructure needs, private development, and commercial expansion. This specific award, valued at over $26 million, represents a significant project within this sector, likely involving extensive planning, labor, and materials. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against similar-sized construction projects for government agencies, considering factors like location, complexity, and specific development requirements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Consequently, the primary impact on the small business ecosystem would be through potential subcontracting opportunities, if any were mandated or pursued by the prime contractor. Without information on subcontracting plans or actual awards, it's difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses benefited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and relevant program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed details regarding foreign awardees and the specific scope of work. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Infrastructure Improvement Contracts
Federal Building Construction

Risk Flags

Lack of transparency regarding foreign awardees.
Undisclosed scope of work for site development.
Limited information on the number of bidders.
Potential national security concerns due to undisclosed foreign involvement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.5 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). SITE DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS

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 $26.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-03-28. End: 2013-09-27.

What specific types of site development and improvements were included in this $26.5 million contract?

The provided data categorizes this contract under 'SITE DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS' (d: 'SITE DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS') with a total award amount of $26,540,057.17 (a: 26540057.17). However, the specific details of what constituted these improvements are not elaborated in the given data points. This could range from land clearing, grading, utility installation, paving, landscaping, to the construction of foundational elements for future structures. Without further documentation or a detailed contract statement of work, the precise nature of the site development remains unspecified. This lack of detail makes it difficult to benchmark the cost-effectiveness or compare it to similar projects.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded to 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'?

The designation 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' (co: 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)') for a contract awarded by the Department of the Army is a significant point of concern regarding transparency and potential national security implications. It implies that the prime contractor or a substantial portion of the work was awarded to entities outside the United States, but their identities and specific roles are not publicly disclosed. This lack of disclosure hinders the ability to assess potential risks associated with foreign involvement, such as supply chain security, intellectual property protection, and adherence to U.S. labor or environmental standards. It also complicates due diligence and oversight processes for the government.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type influence the risk and cost management for this project?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type (pt: 'FIRM FIXED PRICE') is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the project for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. For this $26.5 million site development contract, the FFP structure provides cost certainty for the Department of the Army. However, it also means that the contractor must meticulously estimate all costs upfront, and any unforeseen issues or scope creep not formally addressed through contract modifications could lead to financial strain for the contractor or potentially impact the quality of work if corners are cut.

What does the 914-day duration suggest about the complexity and nature of this site development project?

The contract duration of 914 days (dur: 914), which is approximately 2.5 years, suggests that this site development project is substantial in scope and complexity. Such a long timeframe typically indicates extensive work, potentially involving large-scale earthmoving, intricate utility installations, phased construction, or development across a significant geographical area. It implies a need for sustained project management, a considerable labor force, and potentially multiple stages of execution and oversight. Projects of this duration often require detailed logistical planning and coordination to ensure timely completion and adherence to the overall project goals.

Given the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code, what are typical cost drivers for such projects?

For projects under the NAICS code 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' (nd: 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction'), typical cost drivers include labor (skilled trades, project management), materials (concrete, steel, lumber, specialized equipment), site preparation (excavation, grading, environmental remediation), utility infrastructure (water, sewer, electrical, communication lines), equipment rental, permits and fees, and contractor overhead and profit. For a project valued at $26.5 million, the scale of these components would be significant. Factors like geographic location (affecting labor rates and material transport costs), site conditions (soil stability, existing structures), and the specific requirements for the site development (e.g., advanced drainage systems, specialized foundations) would heavily influence the final cost.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W5J9JE11R0013

Offers Received: 12

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: $26,540,057

Exercised Options: $26,540,057

Current Obligation: $26,540,057

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline