DoD's $19.26M Troop Housing Building Phase 6 contract awarded to undisclosed foreign entity

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,262,170 ($19.3M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-07-08

End Date: 2013-07-07

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 24

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TROOP HOUSING BUILDING, PHASE 6

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.3 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: TROOP HOUSING BUILDING, PHASE 6 Key points: 1. Value for money assessment is difficult due to undisclosed contractor identity and lack of detailed cost breakdowns. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, but the foreign awardee raises questions about domestic industry impact. 3. Risk indicators include the lack of transparency regarding the contractor's identity and potential national security implications. 4. Performance context is limited to the construction of troop housing, a critical but standard facility type. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader defense construction market, characterized by large-scale infrastructure projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $19.26 million contract is challenging due to the undisclosed identity of the foreign awardee. Without knowing the specific contractor, it's impossible to compare their past performance, overhead, or profit margins against industry standards or similar domestic firms. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the lack of transparency prevents a thorough value-for-money assessment. The contract's duration of two years for a building construction project seems reasonable, but the overall cost-effectiveness remains uncertain.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders were theoretically allowed to participate. However, the fact that the award went to an undisclosed foreign entity raises questions about the effectiveness of this competition in securing the best value for the U.S. taxpayer or supporting domestic industry. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to assess the true level of competition and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for price discovery, awarding to an undisclosed foreign entity may limit the direct economic benefits to U.S. businesses and taxpayers. It also introduces potential complexities in oversight and accountability.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. military personnel who will utilize the troop housing facilities. The service delivered is the construction of a troop housing building, essential for military readiness. The geographic impact is localized to the base or installation where the building is constructed. Workforce implications would primarily involve construction labor, potentially including both domestic and foreign workers depending on the awardee's practices.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the identity of the foreign awardee.
Potential national security risks associated with foreign entities involved in critical infrastructure.
Uncertainty about the impact on domestic construction industry competitiveness.
Difficulty in assessing contractor responsibility and past performance due to anonymity.

Positive Signals

Contract was awarded through full and open competition, theoretically maximizing bidder participation.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Construction of troop housing directly supports military personnel and readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area often involves large-scale projects for military bases, government facilities, and public infrastructure. Benchmarks for similar troop housing projects would typically consider factors like cost per square foot, construction timelines, and adherence to military construction standards. The defense sector's construction spending is substantial, driven by modernization and operational needs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. Given the nature of large-scale construction projects, there's often an opportunity for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, but this contract's award to an undisclosed foreign entity makes it difficult to ascertain the extent of such opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Army's contracting officers and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are generally tied to the firm-fixed-price contract terms and performance standards. Transparency is a concern due to the undisclosed identity of the awardee. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Family Housing Construction
Barracks and Dormitory Construction
Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Undisclosed Contractor Identity
Potential National Security Concerns
Lack of Transparency in Award
Foreign Awardee Status

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.3 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). TROOP HOUSING BUILDING, PHASE 6

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 $19.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-07-08. End: 2013-07-07.

What is the track record of the undisclosed foreign awardee in similar construction projects?

The provided data does not disclose the identity of the awardee, making it impossible to assess their track record. In a typical scenario, a federal spending analyst would investigate the contractor's past performance on similar projects, looking for evidence of timely completion, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or litigation. Without this information, the government's decision-making process and the potential risks associated with this award remain opaque. This lack of transparency is a significant gap in evaluating the contractor's reliability and suitability for executing the troop housing project effectively.

How does the cost of this troop housing project compare to similar projects awarded domestically?

Direct cost comparison is difficult without knowing the specific scope, location, and quality standards of comparable domestic projects, as well as the identity of the awardee. However, the total contract value of $19.26 million for a troop housing building (Phase 6) over two years provides a baseline. Analysts would typically look at cost per square foot or cost per bed/occupant. If the awardee is a foreign entity, currency exchange rates and different labor/material cost structures could influence the price. The lack of transparency regarding the awardee prevents a detailed benchmarking against known domestic construction firms' pricing models and overhead structures.

What are the specific risks associated with awarding a construction contract to an undisclosed foreign entity?

Awarding contracts to undisclosed foreign entities presents several risks. Firstly, there are potential national security concerns, especially when dealing with infrastructure on military installations. It can be harder to vet the entity's background, affiliations, and compliance with U.S. standards. Secondly, transparency and accountability are diminished, making oversight more challenging. Thirdly, there's a risk of circumvention of domestic labor laws or environmental regulations if not properly managed. Finally, it raises questions about whether the competition truly served the best interests of U.S. taxpayers and domestic industry if a foreign entity was preferred without clear justification or transparency.

What is the historical spending pattern for troop housing construction by the Department of the Army?

The Department of the Army has a consistent history of investing in troop housing construction to maintain and upgrade facilities for service members. Spending in this category fluctuates based on modernization needs, base realignment and closure (BRAC) actions, and overall defense budgets. Historical data would show significant annual outlays for new barracks, dormitories, and family housing. Analyzing past contracts, including their value, duration, and awardees, would reveal trends in construction costs, typical project sizes, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., firm-fixed-price). This specific contract, "Phase 6," implies a multi-phase approach to a larger housing development, suggesting ongoing investment in that particular facility.

Does the firm-fixed-price contract type adequately mitigate cost overruns for this project?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is designed to provide cost certainty to the government by shifting the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. For a construction project with a defined scope like troop housing, an FFP contract is generally appropriate. However, the effectiveness of risk mitigation depends on the accuracy of the initial cost estimates and the contractor's ability to manage their own expenses. If unforeseen issues arise that are outside the contractor's control (e.g., significant material price spikes not covered by contract clauses, or unforeseen site conditions), the government might still face claims or change orders, although the FFP structure aims to minimize this. The lack of transparency about the awardee makes it harder to assess their capacity to absorb potential cost fluctuations.

What does the 'Phase 6' designation imply about the overall project and its funding?

The 'Phase 6' designation strongly suggests that this contract is part of a larger, multi-stage construction project for troop housing. This implies that the total project is broken down into several distinct contracts, likely awarded over time as funding becomes available and construction progresses. Each phase would typically represent a specific segment of the overall facility, such as a particular building, a set of buildings, or distinct construction stages (e.g., foundation, structure, finishing). This phased approach allows for better budget management, risk distribution, and potentially allows the government to adapt plans based on lessons learned from earlier phases. It also indicates a significant, long-term investment in troop housing infrastructure at the specified location.

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: W912ER11R0023

Offers Received: 24

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: $21,432,270

Exercised Options: $19,262,170

Current Obligation: $19,262,170

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline