DoD's $37.4M DBE Border Road Segment 2B Contract Awarded to Foreign Entity
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $37,383,129 ($37.4M)
Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2010-09-17
End Date: 2015-02-27
Contract Duration: 1,624 days
Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: DBE BORDER ROAD SEGMENT 2B
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $37.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: DBE BORDER ROAD SEGMENT 2B Key points: 1. Significant spending on a border road project awarded to foreign entities. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about price discovery and value for money. 3. The contract duration of 1624 days suggests a substantial, long-term infrastructure investment. 4. The 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' designation warrants further investigation into the specific entities involved.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The total award amount is $37.4 million. Without comparable contracts or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to assess if this price is reasonable. The lack of competition further complicates a thorough value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was not available for competition, indicating a limited source selection process. This lack of competition likely hindered effective price discovery and potentially led to a higher cost than if multiple bids were solicited.
Taxpayer Impact: The use of taxpayer funds for a large infrastructure project awarded without competition to foreign entities raises questions about the efficient allocation of resources and potential missed opportunities for domestic economic benefit.
Public Impact
Taxpayer funds are being used for a significant border infrastructure project. The award to foreign entities may have implications for domestic job creation and economic impact. Transparency regarding the specific foreign awardees and the justification for limited competition is crucial for public trust.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition
- Award to foreign entities
- Lack of transparency on awardees
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed price contract type can provide cost certainty
Sector Analysis
This contract falls under Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction. Spending in this sector can vary widely based on project scope, location, and economic conditions. Benchmarking requires specific project details and regional cost data.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates no specific set-aside for small businesses, and the awardee is listed as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' suggesting no direct benefit to U.S. small businesses from this prime contract.
Oversight & Accountability
The limited competition and award to foreign entities suggest a need for robust oversight to ensure the project meets its objectives and that funds are used appropriately. Further review of the justification for limited competition is warranted.
Related Government Programs
- Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Lack of competition
- Award to foreign entities
- Unclear awardee identity
- Potential for inflated costs
- Limited domestic economic benefit
Tags
highway-street-and-bridge-construction, department-of-defense, dca, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $37.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. DBE BORDER ROAD SEGMENT 2B
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $37.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-09-17. End: 2015-02-27.
What was the specific justification for awarding this contract without full and open competition, especially given the significant dollar amount?
The justification for limited competition is critical. Typically, such justifications are based on factors like urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities of a specific contractor, or circumstances where only one source is capable of meeting the requirement. Without this documentation, it's impossible to assess if the government received fair value or if alternative competitive strategies were overlooked.
What are the specific risks associated with awarding a major infrastructure project to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' without clear identification?
Risks include potential challenges in contract oversight, quality control, and ensuring compliance with U.S. standards and regulations. There are also geopolitical and national security considerations when awarding critical infrastructure projects to foreign entities without full transparency. Furthermore, it raises questions about the economic benefit to U.S. taxpayers and domestic industries.
How does the $37.4 million expenditure for this border road segment compare to similar projects, and what is the expected return on investment for taxpayers?
Benchmarking this expenditure requires detailed project specifications, location, and construction costs for comparable road segments. Without this data, a direct comparison is difficult. The return on investment for taxpayers is typically measured by improved infrastructure, enhanced security, and economic development. The lack of competition and foreign awardees may impact the perceived value and domestic economic return.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: W5K9ZM10R0008
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08
Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $43,590,189
Exercised Options: $37,383,129
Current Obligation: $37,383,129
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-09-17
Current End Date: 2015-02-27
Potential End Date: 2015-02-27 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-09-23
More Contracts from Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
- Additional Services Mca-Funded — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W27p4a05c0002} Bottled Water — $480.1M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gy007c0053} Rule of LAW — $372.4M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gdw07d4021} Reconstruction Security Support Services (rsss) — $188.8M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gxy06c0094} AL Qudas GAS Turbine Expansion — $169.5M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)