DoD's $39.6M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees with No Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,618,412 ($39.6M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-24

End Date: 2016-09-08

Contract Duration: 2,541 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Key points: 1. The contract's value of $39.6 million over its duration raises questions about cost-effectiveness given the lack of competitive bidding. 2. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests a potentially fragmented or less transparent procurement process. 3. The absence of competition is a significant risk indicator, potentially leading to inflated prices and reduced service quality. 4. This contract falls under Facilities Support Services, a broad category that can encompass a wide range of maintenance and repair activities. 5. The long duration of the contract (2541 days) warrants scrutiny regarding its flexibility and alignment with evolving needs. 6. The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty but may not incentivize efficiency if the base price is not competitive.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation and the lack of competitive data. The $39.6 million total obligation over approximately seven years averages to roughly $5.6 million annually. Without knowing the specific services rendered or the geographic locations, it's difficult to compare this to similar contracts. However, the absence of competition inherently limits the ability to assess if the pricing reflects fair market value or if taxpayers received the best possible deal.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, indicating that a full and open competition was not conducted. The specific reasons for this sole-source award are not detailed in the provided data. The lack of bidders means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a competitive process, which can often lead to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium for these facilities support services, as there was no market pressure to drive down prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the foreign entities awarded the contract, providing them with significant revenue. The services delivered are facilities maintenance and repair, crucial for supporting Department of Defense operations. The geographic impact is likely tied to specific DoD installations where these services are required, though not specified. Workforce implications would involve employment opportunities for individuals within the foreign awardee organizations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for money.
The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation lacks specificity, hindering transparency and accountability.
The long contract duration without clear performance metrics could lead to complacency or outdated service delivery.
The absence of a specified NAICS code (PSC is blank) makes it difficult to categorize and benchmark the services accurately.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract type offers budget certainty for the Department of Defense.
The contract duration indicates a long-term need for these facilities support services.
The award supports essential maintenance and repair functions for military operations.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of service providers, from large corporations to specialized small businesses. The market size for facilities management globally is substantial, driven by the need to maintain complex infrastructure. This particular contract, awarded by the Department of Defense, represents a significant portion of spending within a niche, government-focused segment of the facilities support market. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific service details and geographic context.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award, as the contract was awarded to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' and the 'sb' field is false. There is no indication of small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the procurement process did not prioritize or facilitate opportunities for small businesses within the domestic ecosystem for these specific services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Given the sole-source nature and the award to foreign entities, robust oversight would be critical to ensure service quality, cost control, and adherence to contract terms. Transparency is limited due to the lack of competition and specific awardee information. Inspector General jurisdiction would typically apply to DoD contracts, but the effectiveness of oversight in this specific case is unclear without further information.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Foreign Military Support Contracts
Global Facilities Management Services
Base Operations Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Vague Awardee Designation
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Transparency
Unknown Service Scope

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

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 $39.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-24. End: 2016-09-08.

What specific facilities support services were included under this contract?

The provided data classifies the contract under NAICS code 561210 for Facilities Support Services and lists the Product Service Code (PSC) as blank, with the description 'MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR'. However, the specific details of the services rendered are not elaborated upon. Facilities Support Services can encompass a wide array of activities, including but not limited to building operations, maintenance, repair of structural components, groundskeeping, waste management, and security services. Without further documentation or contract details, it is impossible to ascertain the precise scope of work performed under this $39.6 million award.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis?

The data explicitly states the contract was awarded under 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is synonymous with a sole-source award. The specific justification for bypassing a competitive bidding process is not provided in the dataset. Common reasons for sole-source awards include urgent and compelling needs, the unavailability of a sufficient number of qualified sources, or when a specific technology or capability is only available from a single source. However, without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition), the exact rationale remains unknown, raising questions about the procurement process.

What is the track record of the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' is highly generic and does not refer to a specific contractor or group of contractors with a known track record. This term typically indicates that the award was made to entities outside the United States, possibly multiple small foreign entities or a consolidated award where individual awardee details were not itemized in the reporting system. Consequently, it is impossible to assess the performance history, reliability, or past performance quality of these awardees based solely on this designation. This lack of specificity hinders due diligence and oversight.

How does the $39.6 million spending compare to similar facilities support contracts?

Comparing the $39.6 million total obligation over approximately seven years (2009-2016) for facilities support services is difficult without more context. The lack of competition and the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation make direct benchmarking problematic. Annual spending averaged around $5.6 million. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify similar contracts for facilities maintenance and repair at comparable Department of Defense installations, ideally those awarded competitively. Without such comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state whether this spending represents good value for money or if it was inflated due to the non-competitive nature of the award.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' without competition?

Awarding contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' without competition presents several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition itself is a primary risk, potentially leading to higher prices and lower quality services as there is no market pressure to perform efficiently or cost-effectively. Secondly, the vague designation hinders transparency and accountability; it's difficult to track performance, ensure compliance with US regulations or ethical standards, and verify the capabilities of the awardees. Thirdly, managing and overseeing contracts with multiple, unspecified foreign entities can be administratively complex and increase the risk of miscommunication, payment issues, or disputes. Finally, there could be geopolitical or security risks depending on the countries involved and the nature of the services provided.

What was the historical spending trend for facilities support services by the Department of the Army during the contract period?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award from 2009 to 2016. To analyze historical spending trends for facilities support services by the Department of the Army, a broader dataset encompassing multiple contracts over a longer period would be necessary. This would involve examining annual obligations for NAICS code 561210 and related service codes across various Army commands and installations. Without access to that aggregated spending data, it's impossible to determine if the $39.6 million for this specific contract represented an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending compared to previous or concurrent periods for similar services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

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: $39,618,412

Exercised Options: $39,618,412

Current Obligation: $39,618,412

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline