DoD's $21.5M Design/Build Contract for Afghan Base Construction Raises Value and Competition Questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,460,824 ($21.5M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-06-20

End Date: 2015-06-10

Contract Duration: 1,451 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 20

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DESIGN/BUILD ANCOP SSB GARDEZ PAKTIKA

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.5 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD ANCOP SSB GARDEZ PAKTIKA Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is unclear due to undisclosed foreign awardee details and a lack of specific performance metrics. 2. Limited competition dynamics are suggested by the 'full and open' award type but the number of bidders is not specified. 3. Risk indicators include the use of a definitive contract for construction and the geographic location of the project. 4. Performance context is difficult to assess without clear deliverables and success criteria outlined in the award data. 5. The contract falls within the broader Defense sector, specifically supporting infrastructure development in conflict zones. 6. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty, but the final cost relative to scope requires further scrutiny. 7. The contract duration of 1451 days indicates a significant, long-term infrastructure project.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $21.5 million contract is challenging due to the lack of detailed cost breakdowns and performance outcomes. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but without comparable projects or clear metrics on the quality and timeliness of the construction, assessing value for money is difficult. The undisclosed foreign awardee further complicates a direct comparison to U.S. contractor performance and pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, the data does not specify the number of bids received, which is crucial for understanding the actual level of competition. A high number of bidders typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: While 'full and open' competition is the preferred method, the lack of bidder count prevents a definitive assessment of whether taxpayers received the best possible price. The government's ability to secure competitive pricing is directly tied to the number of viable offers received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Department of Defense and its personnel, who would utilize the constructed facilities. The services delivered include the design and construction of a significant base infrastructure (SSB) in Gardez, Paktika, Afghanistan. The geographic impact is concentrated in the Paktika province of Afghanistan, a region with substantial security challenges. Workforce implications would involve construction labor, potentially including local Afghan workers and international contractors, though specific details are absent.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific foreign awardee and their qualifications.
Geopolitical risks associated with construction in a conflict zone like Paktika, Afghanistan.
Potential for cost overruns or delays not fully captured by the firm-fixed-price structure due to unforeseen circumstances.
Difficulty in verifying the quality and long-term durability of construction in a challenging environment.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a firm-fixed-price contract, which generally aims to control costs.
Utilized 'full and open competition,' indicating an effort to solicit a broad range of potential contractors.
The contract duration of over 1400 days suggests a comprehensive and potentially well-planned project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on defense infrastructure. The global market for defense construction is substantial, driven by geopolitical needs and military modernization efforts. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other base construction projects in similar operational environments, though data for such specific projects is often classified or difficult to obtain.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. There is no information on subcontracting plans or the extent to which small businesses, either domestic or foreign, may have been involved. This suggests the primary awardee was likely a larger entity capable of undertaking such a significant project independently.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers, quality assurance representatives, and potentially Inspector General investigations, especially given the location and scale. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed performance reporting and the undisclosed nature of the foreign awardee. Accountability would be enforced through contract terms and potential penalties for non-performance.

Related Government Programs

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
Foreign Military Construction Contracts
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Lack of transparency regarding awardee identity.
Potential for cost overruns despite fixed-price structure.
Geopolitical instability impacting project execution.
Difficulty in verifying construction quality and compliance.
Limited public information on performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.5 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). DESIGN/BUILD ANCOP SSB GARDEZ PAKTIKA

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 $21.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-06-20. End: 2015-06-10.

What specific construction was completed under this contract, and what were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for its success?

The contract data specifies 'DESIGN/BUILD ANCOP SSB GARDEZ PAKTIKA,' indicating the construction of a Security Support Battalion (SSB) base in Gardez, Paktika province, Afghanistan. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for success are not detailed in the provided award information. Typically, for such projects, KPIs would include adherence to design specifications, construction quality standards, timely completion within the 1451-day duration, and operational readiness of the facility upon handover. Without specific metrics, it is difficult to definitively assess the project's success beyond its completion.

How does the $21.5 million cost compare to similar base construction projects in Afghanistan or similar operational theaters?

Directly comparing the $21.5 million cost to similar projects is challenging due to the limited public data available for defense construction in active operational zones. Factors such as security requirements, logistical complexities, material costs, and labor rates in Afghanistan significantly influence project expenses. Generally, construction in such environments is considerably more expensive than in stable, developed nations. Without specific details on the scope, size, and amenities of the ANCOP SSB, a precise benchmark is not feasible. However, the amount reflects a substantial investment in establishing or upgrading critical military infrastructure.

What are the known risks associated with awarding construction contracts to 'undisclosed foreign awardees' in conflict zones?

Awarding contracts to undisclosed foreign awardees in conflict zones presents several risks. These include challenges in vetting the contractor's reliability, financial stability, and adherence to ethical standards. Transparency is reduced, making oversight more difficult and increasing the potential for fraud or mismanagement. There can also be risks related to security, labor practices, and ensuring compliance with U.S. government regulations and quality standards. The lack of disclosure necessitates a higher degree of diligence from the awarding agency to mitigate these potential issues and ensure accountability.

What was the rationale for using a 'definitive contract' type for a construction project of this magnitude and duration?

The use of a 'definitive contract' (often a type of fixed-price contract) for a large construction project like this typically indicates that the scope of work was well-defined at the time of award, allowing for a firm price to be established. Definitive contracts are common for projects where the requirements are clear and unlikely to change significantly. For construction, this structure aims to provide cost certainty to the government. However, the term 'definitive contract' itself is broad; its specific terms and conditions would dictate flexibility and risk allocation. The 1451-day duration suggests a long-term commitment, and the definitive nature implies the government sought to lock in costs upfront.

Given the 'full and open competition' award, how many bids were actually received, and what does this imply about the competitive landscape?

The contract data indicates 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' as the award method, which theoretically allows any responsible source to submit an offer. However, the specific number of bids received (no: 20) is provided. This number suggests a reasonably competitive landscape, with 20 offers submitted for consideration. A higher number of bids generally correlates with better price discovery and increased likelihood of the government securing a competitive price. While 20 bids indicate significant interest, further analysis would be needed to understand the quality and capabilities of each bidder to fully assess the competitive dynamics.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army in Afghanistan?

Historical spending patterns for similar infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army in Afghanistan are extensive, particularly during the period of U.S. military engagement. Billions of dollars were allocated through various programs and contracts for base construction, facility upgrades, and logistical support. These projects often involved significant challenges related to security, logistics, and the local operating environment, leading to high costs. The Army Corps of Engineers was frequently the primary executing agency. Specific spending figures for comparable SSB constructions would require deep dives into historical contract databases and program reports, often revealing substantial investments in establishing and maintaining operational capabilities.

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: W5J9JE11R0092

Offers Received: 20

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: $21,460,824

Exercised Options: $21,460,824

Current Obligation: $21,460,824

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline