DoD's $189M ANCOP PATROL BN contract awarded to undisclosed foreign entities for construction services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,944,972 ($18.9M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-01-23

End Date: 2013-03-27

Contract Duration: 429 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 50

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ANCOP PATROL BN

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.9 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: ANCOP PATROL BN Key points: 1. The contract's value of $189.4 million represents a significant investment in construction services. 2. Awarding to foreign entities without clear disclosure raises transparency and accountability questions. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and budget, potentially mitigating cost overruns. 4. The duration of 429 days indicates a substantial construction project. 5. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified bidders. 6. The lack of small business set-aside indicates a focus on larger, potentially specialized, contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $189.4 million construction contract is challenging due to the undisclosed nature of the foreign awardees. Without knowing the specific scope of work and comparing it to similar projects awarded domestically or to known entities, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm-fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but the lack of transparency regarding the contractor's identity and pricing structure prevents a thorough value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning the Department of Defense sought bids from all responsible sources. The data indicates 50 bids were received, suggesting a robust competitive process. A high number of bids generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government, as contractors vie for the award.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive pricing environment, benefiting taxpayers by ensuring the government received the best possible value for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the military personnel and operations supported by the construction project, though the specific location and purpose are not detailed. The contract delivered commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is not specified, but as a Department of Defense contract, it likely relates to military installations. The workforce implications would involve construction labor, potentially including both domestic and foreign workers depending on the awardee's capabilities and location.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the identity and nationality of the awardees raises concerns about accountability and potential national security risks.
The significant dollar amount awarded to foreign entities without clear disclosure warrants further investigation into the procurement process and due diligence.
Without specific details on the construction project, it's difficult to assess the long-term quality and maintainability of the delivered infrastructure.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders and a commitment to competitive pricing.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope of work is well-defined.
The receipt of 50 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and capability in the market for these construction services.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. This sector is crucial for infrastructure development, including military bases and facilities. The $189.4 million value places this contract as a significant project within this domain. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar military construction projects, which is difficult here due to the lack of specific project details and awardee information.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, and there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. This suggests that the primary awardee is likely a large business, and the potential for small business participation through subcontracting is not explicitly detailed or mandated in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers, quality assurance personnel, and potentially Inspector General investigations. However, the lack of transparency regarding the foreign awardees complicates the assessment of accountability and oversight effectiveness. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides some level of financial oversight by locking in costs, but the specifics of performance monitoring and quality control are not detailed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Foreign Military Sales Construction Support
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Lack of Transparency in Awardee Identity
Potential National Security Risks
Accountability Concerns with Foreign Contractors
Undisclosed Scope of Work Details

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.9 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). ANCOP PATROL BN

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 $18.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-01-23. End: 2013-03-27.

What specific construction services were delivered under this contract?

The contract NAICS code indicates 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.' This broadly covers the erection of new buildings and the alteration, repair, and renovation of existing non-residential buildings. However, without further details, the exact nature of the construction (e.g., barracks, administrative facilities, training centers, infrastructure upgrades) remains unspecified. The contract value of $189.4 million suggests a substantial project, likely involving significant structural work, potentially including site preparation, foundation, framing, roofing, and interior finishing, tailored to the needs of the Department of the Army.

What is the rationale for awarding such a large contract to undisclosed foreign entities?

The provided data does not offer a rationale for awarding this contract to undisclosed foreign entities. Typically, such awards might occur in specific geopolitical contexts, such as supporting U.S. operations abroad where local or regional contractors are utilized, or if specific expertise or resources are uniquely available from foreign sources. However, the lack of disclosure raises significant questions about the justification, due diligence performed, and potential risks associated with awarding nearly $190 million without transparency. This could be related to security cooperation agreements or operational necessities in a foreign theater.

How does the firm-fixed-price contract type mitigate risks for the government in this specific case?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is designed to provide the government with cost certainty. Under an FFP contract, the contractor agrees to a total price for a well-defined scope of work. This means the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, and the government's liability is limited to the agreed-upon price. For this $189.4 million construction contract, the FFP structure aims to prevent unexpected increases in costs due to labor, material, or other direct expenses. However, the effectiveness of risk mitigation is contingent on the clarity and completeness of the contract's scope of work and specifications.

What are the potential implications of awarding to 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' for national security and accountability?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude to undisclosed foreign entities presents several potential national security and accountability implications. Firstly, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to vet the awardees thoroughly, potentially exposing the project to risks associated with entities that may not meet U.S. security standards or could have conflicting interests. Secondly, accountability becomes more challenging; enforcing contract terms, addressing performance issues, or seeking recourse in case of disputes may be complicated by jurisdictional and diplomatic factors. This lack of clarity hinders effective oversight and could potentially undermine the integrity of the procurement process.

What does the number of bids (50) suggest about the market for this type of construction service?

Receiving 50 bids for this construction contract suggests a highly competitive market for the services solicited by the Department of the Army. A large number of bidders typically indicates that there are numerous capable contractors interested in and qualified for the work. This level of competition is generally favorable for the government, as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and allows the contracting agency to select from a wide pool of potential awardees, potentially leading to better overall value and performance.

Are there any indications of performance issues or contract modifications given the contract's duration and value?

The provided data does not include specific details on contract performance, modifications, or any potential issues that may have arisen during the contract period (January 23, 2012, to March 27, 2013). A contract duration of 429 days for a $189.4 million project is substantial. While firm-fixed-price contracts aim for cost certainty, construction projects of this scale can sometimes encounter unforeseen challenges leading to change orders or modifications. Without access to the contract's performance history or modification logs, it's impossible to assess whether the project was completed on time, within budget, and to the required specifications.

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: W5J9LE12R0014

Offers Received: 50

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: $20,004,972

Exercised Options: $18,944,972

Current Obligation: $18,944,972

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline