Department of Defense awarded $44.9M for construction, but competition was limited, raising value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $44,940,420 ($44.9M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2013-11-17

Contract Duration: 1,509 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIAL SECURITY BRIGADE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $44.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIAL SECURITY BRIGADE Key points: 1. Limited competition may have impacted pricing and overall value for taxpayer dollars. 2. The contract was awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, providing cost certainty but potentially limiting flexibility. 3. The duration of the contract (1509 days) suggests a significant and complex construction project. 4. The awardee is listed as 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees,' indicating a lack of specific contractor identification. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized for this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $44.9 million construction contract is challenging due to the lack of specific details on the scope of work and the limited competition. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty, but without comparable projects or market rates for similar specialized security brigade construction, it's difficult to definitively assess if the price represents good value. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation further complicates a direct comparison to known domestic construction costs or contractor performance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'Not Available for Competition' (sole-source) designation. This means that the Department of the Army did not solicit bids from multiple contractors. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore different pricing structures and potentially secure a more competitive rate. It suggests that only one source was deemed capable or available to perform the required construction.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's leverage in negotiating favorable terms and ensures that only one company's pricing is considered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel requiring specialized security infrastructure. The services delivered include the construction of facilities essential for national security operations. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the construction, likely a military installation. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction labor, potentially both domestic and foreign, depending on the awardee's sourcing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of best value.
Ambiguity in awardee identification ('Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees') hinders performance assessment and accountability.
Long contract duration could indicate potential for cost overruns or scope creep if not managed tightly.
Absence of small business participation limits opportunities for smaller domestic firms.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Construction of specialized security facilities addresses a critical defense need.
The project was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major federal agency with established procurement processes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. The market for specialized security construction within defense is a niche segment, often characterized by unique requirements and potentially limited contractor pools. The $44.9 million award is a significant sum, indicating a substantial project. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale military construction projects, but the specific nature of 'Special Security Brigade' facilities makes direct comparisons difficult.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, meaning it was not specifically reserved for small businesses. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests that subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses may have been limited or non-existent. This procurement approach does not actively contribute to the small business ecosystem or provide them with direct opportunities on this specific project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which places the cost risk on the contractor. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the vague identification of the awardee. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Specialized Facility Construction
Department of the Army Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Lack of Transparency in Awardee
Potential for Overpricing
Unclear Scope of Work Justification

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $44.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIAL SECURITY BRIGADE

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 $44.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2013-11-17.

What specific type of 'Special Security Brigade' facilities were constructed under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the 'Special Security Brigade' facilities. This designation typically refers to infrastructure designed to support elite security units, potentially including command centers, barracks, training areas, or secure operational bases. Without further details, the precise function and technical requirements of the constructed facilities remain unknown. Understanding the specific purpose would be crucial for assessing the necessity and appropriateness of the $44.9 million expenditure and the limited competition.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis, and what was the justification?

The data indicates the contract was 'Not Available for Competition,' which is a sole-source justification. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs. For a construction project of this magnitude, common justifications might include unique technical expertise, proprietary technology, urgent national security requirements that preclude a competitive process, or geographic limitations. However, the specific justification for this award is not detailed in the provided information and would typically be documented in the contract file.

What does 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' signify in terms of contractor identity and location?

'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' is a non-specific designation that obscures the actual identity and location of the contractor. It suggests that the award was made to an entity or entities outside of the United States, but provides no further clarity. This lack of specificity raises concerns regarding due diligence, vetting of foreign entities, and the ability to enforce contract terms or hold the contractor accountable. It also makes it difficult to assess the contractor's past performance, financial stability, or relevant experience in the construction sector.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact risk and value for this construction project?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract shifts the majority of the cost risk to the contractor, meaning the government pays a set price regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This provides significant cost certainty for the government, making budgeting more predictable. For a construction project, FFP is often preferred when the scope of work is well-defined. However, if the scope was not fully understood or if unforeseen issues arose, the contractor might be incentivized to cut corners, or the government might have missed opportunities for savings if the initial price was too high due to the lack of competition.

What was the historical spending pattern for similar 'Special Security Brigade' construction projects by the Department of Defense?

The provided data does not offer historical spending patterns for similar 'Special Security Brigade' construction projects. Analyzing past expenditures on comparable facilities would be essential for benchmarking the $44.9 million award. Without this context, it's difficult to determine if this contract represents an outlier, an increase, or a decrease in spending for such specialized infrastructure. Understanding historical trends would also help in evaluating the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the current procurement.

Were there any performance issues or disputes associated with this contract given its long duration and sole-source nature?

The provided data does not contain information regarding performance issues or disputes related to this contract. The contract spanned from September 30, 2009, to November 17, 2013, a period of over four years, indicating a substantial construction undertaking. Given the sole-source award and the vague identification of the contractor, monitoring performance and addressing any potential issues would have been critical. A lack of reported disputes does not necessarily equate to flawless execution, especially with limited transparency.

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: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $44,940,420

Exercised Options: $44,940,420

Current Obligation: $44,940,420

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline