Department of Defense awards $20.5M for facility administration, with 10 contracts issued

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,561,729 ($20.6M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-24

End Date: 2013-10-16

Contract Duration: 1,118 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ADMINISTRATION FACILITY

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.6 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: ADMINISTRATION FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for facility administration services over its duration. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. No explicit risk indicators are immediately apparent from the provided data. 4. Contract performance context is limited without specific delivery details. 5. This contract falls within the broader construction and facilities management sector. 6. The number of awards (10) indicates multiple task orders or phases under this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total contract value of $20.5 million over approximately three years for facility administration is within a reasonable range for large-scale government operations. Benchmarking against similar contracts for facility management services would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which is a positive indicator for cost control.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 10 awards issued, it suggests a robust bidding environment, likely leading to competitive pricing. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically results in more favorable pricing for taxpayers by fostering a competitive marketplace where contractors strive to offer the most cost-effective solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of Defense personnel and operations requiring administrative support for facilities. Services delivered include the administration and management of facilities, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at the specific military installations where the facilities are located. Workforce implications may include on-site administrative staff and support personnel managed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps control costs and shifts risk to the contractor.
Multiple awards (10) suggest flexibility and potential for phased execution or multiple locations.

Sector Analysis

This contract operates within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on the administrative and management aspects of facilities. This sector is crucial for maintaining government infrastructure and operational capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks for facility administration can vary widely based on the size and complexity of the facilities managed, but a $20.5 million contract over three years for a significant DoD operation is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was not a specific set-aside (false). There is no information on subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract award is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms would typically involve contract officers, contracting specialists, and potentially program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability is enforced through contract terms, performance reviews, and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though specific performance details may be sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facility Management Contracts
Military Construction Administration
Government Building Operations Support
Defense Infrastructure Support Services

Risk Flags

Undisclosed Foreign Awardees: Lack of transparency regarding the identity of the contractors raises potential concerns about accountability and vetting.
Limited Performance Data: The provided data lacks specific details on performance metrics, making it difficult to assess the quality of services delivered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.6 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). ADMINISTRATION FACILITY

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 $20.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-24. End: 2013-10-16.

What is the track record of the awarded contractor(s) for similar facility administration contracts?

The provided data does not include specific contractor names, only indicating 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'. Without knowing the identity of the awarded entities, it is impossible to assess their track record for similar facility administration contracts. A thorough review would require identifying the specific prime contractors and examining their past performance ratings, previous contract awards in similar service areas, and any history of performance issues or successes with government contracts.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facility administration?

The data does not provide sufficient detail to calculate a meaningful per-unit cost for facility administration. Key metrics such as the square footage managed, the number of personnel supported, or the specific services included (e.g., maintenance, security, janitorial) are missing. Without these details, a direct comparison to industry benchmarks for per-unit costs (e.g., cost per square foot, cost per occupant) is not feasible. The total contract value of $20.5 million over approximately three years suggests a significant scope of work.

What are the primary risks associated with this type of facility administration contract?

Primary risks for facility administration contracts include scope creep, where additional services are requested beyond the original contract scope without adequate adjustment to cost and timeline. Performance failures, such as inadequate maintenance or security, can impact operational readiness. Contractor financial instability or organizational changes could also pose a risk. Furthermore, managing foreign awardees introduces potential complexities related to communication, legal compliance, and geopolitical factors, especially if their identities are undisclosed.

How effective has the Department of the Army been in managing similar facility administration contracts in the past?

Assessing the overall effectiveness of the Department of the Army in managing similar contracts requires analyzing historical performance data across a portfolio of contracts, not just this single award. Factors to consider include contract closeout times, frequency of contract modifications, contractor performance ratings, and any litigation or disputes. Without access to this broader historical performance context, it's difficult to definitively state the Army's effectiveness. However, the use of full and open competition and firm fixed-price contracts suggests an intent to manage these contracts effectively.

What is the historical spending trend for facility administration services by the Department of Defense?

The provided data is for a single contract award from 2010-2013. To understand historical spending trends for facility administration services by the Department of Defense (DoD), a comprehensive analysis of spending across multiple years and various contracts would be necessary. This would involve examining data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) to identify the total obligated amounts for relevant Product Service Codes (PSCs) and contract types over time. Trends could reveal increases or decreases in spending, shifts in contracting strategies, or changes in the types of services procured.

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: W912ER10R0044

Offers Received: 10

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: $20,561,729

Exercised Options: $20,561,729

Current Obligation: $20,561,729

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline