DoD's $32.4M construction contract with Al Rawaf Co. awarded without competition, spanning over 6 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,427,027 ($32.4M)

Contractor: AL Rawaf CO for Trading and C Ontracting

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-07-18

End Date: 2018-10-15

Contract Duration: 2,280 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: UPGRADE RANGE COMPLEX IGF::OT::IGF

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.4 million to AL RAWAF CO FOR TRADING AND C ONTRACTING for work described as: UPGRADE RANGE COMPLEX IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract's value of $32.4 million over six years suggests a significant investment in construction services. 2. Awarded as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION', this raises questions about the justification for bypassing a competitive bidding process. 3. The long duration of 2280 days (approx. 6 years) indicates a substantial, ongoing project requirement. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, but may limit flexibility. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to support small businesses. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 points to 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction', a broad category.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $32.4 million contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of work and comparable projects. However, the lack of competition suggests potential for higher-than-market pricing. The firm fixed-price nature, while offering budget predictability, could mean the government misses out on potential cost savings that might arise from a more competitive environment or performance-based incentives.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under the 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' category, indicating that a competitive process was not utilized. The specific reasons for this designation are not provided, but it typically implies a lack of available sources, urgent and compelling needs, or national security concerns. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or negotiation driven by market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for the services rendered, as the government did not benefit from a bidding war among potential contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its personnel who will utilize the constructed facilities. The services delivered fall under heavy and civil engineering construction, potentially involving infrastructure development or upgrades. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the construction project is situated, likely a military installation. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for construction workers, engineers, and project managers employed by the contractor and any subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competitive bidding may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
The sole-source nature raises concerns about the justification and potential for favoritism.
Limited transparency into the selection process and pricing negotiations.
The long contract duration could mask inefficiencies if not closely monitored.
Potential for scope creep without competitive pressure to define requirements tightly upfront.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, Al Rawaf Co., was awarded a substantial contract, indicating a level of trust or capability.
The contract duration suggests a significant and potentially critical project for the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly heavy and civil engineering, is a significant area of federal spending. Contracts in this space often involve large-scale infrastructure projects for defense, transportation, and other government functions. The market size for such services is substantial, with numerous large and small firms competing for federal dollars. This contract fits within the broader category of defense infrastructure development, a consistent area of government investment.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the contract was not specifically designated for small businesses, nor does it appear to have explicit subcontracting goals for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be established through the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source award, but contract award data is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Heavy and Civil Engineering Services
Sole-Source Defense Procurements
Long-Term Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Sole-source award justification unclear
Potential for above-market pricing due to lack of competition
Long contract duration increases risk exposure
Limited transparency into award process

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.4 million to AL RAWAF CO FOR TRADING AND C ONTRACTING. UPGRADE RANGE COMPLEX IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AL RAWAF CO FOR TRADING AND C ONTRACTING.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-07-18. End: 2018-10-15.

What specific construction services were procured under this contract, and what was the justification for a sole-source award?

The contract falls under NAICS code 237990, 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.' Specific services are not detailed in the provided data but could range from site preparation, utility installation, road construction, or other large-scale civil engineering works. The justification for a sole-source award, categorized as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' is critical. Common reasons include urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, a lack of qualified sources, or national security imperatives. Without further documentation, the precise rationale remains unclear, but it signifies that the Department of Defense determined that soliciting bids from multiple contractors was not feasible or appropriate in this instance.

How does the $32.4 million contract value compare to similar heavy and civil engineering construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

The $32.4 million value places this contract in the mid-to-large range for federal construction projects. However, a direct comparison is difficult without knowing the specific scope of work, location, and duration of other contracts. The Department of Defense awards numerous construction contracts annually, with values ranging from thousands to billions of dollars. Contracts for major infrastructure upgrades, new facility construction, or extensive site development on military bases can easily reach or exceed this amount. The key differentiator here is the sole-source nature, which makes direct value-for-money comparisons with competitively bid projects less straightforward.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude and duration?

Sole-source contracts carry inherent risks, primarily related to cost and performance. Without competition, there is less pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, potentially leading to higher costs for the government. The lack of multiple bidders also reduces the incentive for innovation or exceptional performance beyond the contract's minimum requirements. Furthermore, the long duration (over 6 years) increases the risk of scope creep, unforeseen cost increases due to market fluctuations, and potential contractor performance issues that may be harder to rectify without alternative options. Robust government oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the firm fixed-price contract type imply for cost control and flexibility in this project?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract establishes a set price for the defined scope of work, regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This provides the government with significant cost certainty and protects against cost overruns, making budgeting more predictable. However, it also means the contractor bears the risk of cost increases. For the government, the inflexibility of an FFP contract can be a drawback if project requirements change significantly during the contract's long duration. Modifications to the scope would require formal change orders, potentially leading to price adjustments and administrative burden. The contractor has less incentive to control costs beyond what is necessary to meet the FFP, as savings do not directly benefit the government.

What is the historical spending pattern for NAICS code 237990 by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending data for NAICS code 237990 by the Department of the Army indicates a consistent and substantial investment in 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.' This category encompasses a wide array of projects, from road and bridge construction to utility systems and site preparation on military installations. The Army frequently procures these services to maintain and upgrade its vast infrastructure. While specific annual totals fluctuate based on budgetary allocations and project needs, this sector represents a significant portion of the Army's contracting portfolio, reflecting the ongoing requirements for maintaining operational readiness and base infrastructure.

Are there any indications of contractor performance issues or past disputes involving Al Rawaf Co. on federal contracts?

Based solely on the provided data snippet, there is no direct information regarding Al Rawaf Co.'s past performance, disputes, or track record on federal contracts. The data focuses on the award details of this specific contract. To assess potential performance risks, a deeper dive into contract performance databases (like the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System -FAPIIS), past performance reviews, and any available litigation or dispute records would be necessary. Without this additional context, it's impossible to evaluate the contractor's reliability or history.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 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: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: AL QASSIM AREA, BURAIDAH

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,427,027

Exercised Options: $32,427,027

Current Obligation: $32,427,027

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline