DOD's $22M Design/Build Contract for Ghazni Brigade Facilities Awarded Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,960,081 ($22.0M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-06-20

End Date: 2013-09-23

Contract Duration: 826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN/BUILD ANA 3-203 BRIGADE, GHAZNI

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.0 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD ANA 3-203 BRIGADE, GHAZNI Key points: 1. The contract's firm-fixed-price structure suggests a defined scope and cost control, though potential for cost overruns exists in complex construction projects. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a broad market solicitation and potential for competitive pricing, but specific bidder numbers are not detailed. 3. The contract duration of 826 days (over two years) points to a significant construction undertaking, requiring robust project management and oversight. 4. The award to 'Domestic Awardees (Undisclosed)' raises transparency concerns regarding the specific contractors involved and their qualifications. 5. The specialty trade contractor NAICS code (238990) suggests a focus on specialized construction services rather than general contracting. 6. The contract was awarded in 2011, providing historical context for current spending and project management practices in similar environments.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $21.96 million contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar design-build projects in comparable geographic or security environments. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) award type generally aims for cost certainty, but the complexity and duration of a brigade facility construction in a challenging region could lead to unforeseen expenses. Without specific performance metrics or a comparison to industry standards for similar construction, assessing the true value-for-money is difficult.

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 bids. While this is generally a positive indicator for competitive pricing, the provided data does not specify the number of bids received or the extent of the competition. A high number of bidders typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to maximize taxpayer value by ensuring a wide range of contractors can compete, driving down prices through market forces. This approach aims to prevent sole-source awards that could lead to inflated costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new brigade facilities in Ghazni, Afghanistan. The contract delivers essential infrastructure, likely including barracks, administrative buildings, and support facilities, crucial for military operations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Ghazni, Afghanistan, supporting U.S. military presence and operations in that region. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and potentially local labor, contributing to economic activity in the area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific domestic awardees hinders assessment of contractor experience and past performance.
The undisclosed nature of awardees makes it difficult to verify if small businesses were involved in subcontracting opportunities.
Construction projects in complex environments like Afghanistan carry inherent risks related to security, logistics, and unforeseen site conditions.

Positive Signals

The use of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
Full and open competition suggests a robust procurement process aimed at achieving competitive pricing.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs for military operations, indicating strategic alignment with defense objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction and Engineering services sector, specifically related to specialty trade contracting. The market for military construction and infrastructure development is substantial, often involving large-scale projects with unique security and logistical requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other design-build contracts for military facilities, particularly those executed in overseas contingency operations, which often command higher costs due to risk premiums and logistical challenges.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside criterion for this contract. Without explicit subcontracting plans or reporting, it's difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses may have been involved indirectly. The absence of small business set-aside requirements could mean fewer opportunities for smaller firms to directly participate in such a large-scale project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of Defense contract would typically fall under the purview of the relevant Army contracting command and potentially the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), given the location and nature of the work. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed awardees. Accountability measures would be tied to contract performance clauses, milestones, and final acceptance of the completed facilities.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Spending
Design-Build Contracts
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Specialty Trade Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Identification
Potential for Cost Overruns in Complex Environments
Limited Transparency on Subcontracting
Geopolitical and Security Risks in Afghanistan

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.0 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). DESIGN/BUILD ANA 3-203 BRIGADE, GHAZNI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC 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 $22.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-06-20. End: 2013-09-23.

What is the track record of the undisclosed domestic awardees for similar large-scale construction projects, particularly in overseas environments?

The provided data does not identify the specific domestic awardees, making it impossible to assess their track record for similar projects. This lack of transparency is a significant limitation. Typically, a federal agency would vet contractors based on past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities. For a project of this magnitude and location, one would expect awardees to have experience with complex construction, potentially in challenging or high-risk environments. Without knowing who the contractors are, their history, any past issues with performance, cost overruns, or schedule delays on similar contracts cannot be evaluated. This information is crucial for understanding the risk associated with this specific award.

How does the $21.96 million cost compare to similar design-build brigade facilities in comparable regions or operational theaters?

Direct comparison of the $21.96 million cost is difficult without more specific project details and comparable benchmarks. Factors influencing cost include the scope of facilities (barracks, command centers, support structures), specific design requirements, local labor and material costs, security measures, and logistical challenges inherent in operating in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Projects in overseas contingency operations often incur higher costs than domestic construction due to these factors. To provide a meaningful comparison, data on the square footage, type of facilities constructed, and the specific year of construction for similar projects in similar environments would be needed. Benchmarking against other Department of Defense design-build contracts for brigade-level facilities awarded around the same period (2011) would offer a more relevant context.

What were the primary risks identified for this contract, and what mitigation strategies were employed?

Given the location (Ghazni, Afghanistan) and the nature of constructing brigade facilities, primary risks likely included security threats to personnel and assets, logistical challenges in delivering materials and equipment, potential for political instability impacting the project timeline, and unforeseen geological or environmental conditions at the site. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust security protocols, detailed logistical planning, contingency planning for schedule delays, and potentially site investigations to identify and address environmental or geological issues. The firm-fixed-price contract structure itself aims to mitigate cost overrun risks for the government, shifting some of that risk to the contractor, provided the scope is clearly defined and managed.

What is the estimated effectiveness of the completed facilities in supporting the operational readiness of the Ghazni Brigade?

The effectiveness of the completed facilities in supporting the operational readiness of the Ghazni Brigade cannot be directly assessed from the provided contract data alone. The contract's purpose was to deliver the physical infrastructure. Its effectiveness is contingent on factors such as the quality of construction, the suitability of the design for the intended military functions, and the ongoing maintenance and utilization of the facilities. Anecdotal evidence or operational reports from the U.S. military in Afghanistan would be necessary to evaluate how well these facilities have met the needs of the brigade and contributed to their mission success and personnel welfare.

How has the Department of Defense's spending on similar design-build construction projects evolved since this contract was awarded in 2011?

Spending on similar design-build construction projects by the Department of Defense has likely fluctuated significantly since 2011, influenced by evolving geopolitical landscapes, changes in military strategy, and budget appropriations. Following major overseas engagements, there might have been a shift towards domestic infrastructure modernization or a reduction in large-scale overseas construction. However, the need for modernized facilities, even in reduced overseas footprints or for training purposes domestically, continues. Analyzing trends in Military Construction (MILCON) budgets and specific contract awards for design-build projects over the past decade would reveal shifts in priorities and spending levels, potentially showing a decrease in contingency-related construction and an increase in other areas.

What oversight mechanisms were in place during the performance of this contract, and were there any significant issues reported?

Specific oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, standard DoD contracting procedures would involve contract officers, quality assurance representatives, and potentially project management teams overseeing the construction progress, adherence to specifications, and financial expenditures. Given the location, oversight might also have involved security personnel and coordination with military command. Without access to contract performance reports or audits, it's impossible to determine if significant issues arose during performance. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) often investigated waste, fraud, and abuse in reconstruction projects, and their reports could potentially contain relevant information if this contract fell under their purview.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors

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: W5J9JE11R0071

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,960,081

Exercised Options: $21,960,081

Current Obligation: $21,960,081

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline