DoD awards $19.2M for troop housing construction, facing limited transparency on foreign awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,184,335 ($19.2M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-07-05

End Date: 2013-07-13

Contract Duration: 739 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TROOP HOUSING BUILDING PHASE 5

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.2 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: TROOP HOUSING BUILDING PHASE 5 Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but final price may exceed initial estimates. 3. The duration of 739 days indicates a substantial construction project. 4. Lack of specific details on foreign awardees raises concerns about accountability and oversight. 5. The contract falls within the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $19.2 million for troop housing construction appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and duration. However, without specific details on the scope of work, location, and comparable projects, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost certainty, but the final cost could be impacted by unforeseen issues during the 739-day performance period. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would offer a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 16 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this construction project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The number of bidders is a positive indicator of market interest and the effectiveness of the solicitation process.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down prices and ensured the government received competitive bids for the troop housing construction.

Public Impact

Service members will benefit from improved housing facilities, potentially enhancing morale and readiness. The contract delivers essential construction services for military infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation where the housing is being built. The project will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector, benefiting the local workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific foreign awardees involved in the contract.
Potential for cost overruns despite the firm fixed-price contract if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
Limited visibility into the specific performance metrics and quality control during the construction phase.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps to establish cost certainty.
The project addresses a critical need for troop housing infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The Department of Defense is a significant client in this sector, frequently awarding contracts for barracks, administrative buildings, and other facilities. The market for military construction is substantial, with numerous firms capable of undertaking large-scale projects. This specific contract for troop housing is a common type of expenditure within the defense budget, aimed at maintaining and improving military readiness and quality of life for service members.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee was likely a larger firm capable of managing the full scope of the project. The absence of small business participation could limit opportunities for smaller construction companies to engage with this specific federal contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures are inherent in the contract terms, particularly the firm fixed-price structure, which incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed nature of foreign awardees. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Barracks and Dormitory Construction
Defense Facilities Construction
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Lack of transparency regarding foreign awardees.
Potential for cost overruns due to project duration and complexity.
Limited information on specific performance metrics and quality assurance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.2 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). TROOP HOUSING BUILDING PHASE 5

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 $19.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-07-05. End: 2013-07-13.

What specific criteria were used to evaluate the bids submitted by the 16 competing firms?

While the data indicates full and open competition with 16 bidders, specific evaluation criteria are not provided. Typically, for construction contracts, evaluation factors include technical approach, past performance, management capability, and price. The relative importance of these factors would be detailed in the solicitation documents. The government aims to select the offer that represents the best value, considering both technical merit and cost. Without access to the solicitation and award decision documents, the precise weighting and assessment of each bidder's proposal remain unknown.

Can the value of this contract be benchmarked against similar troop housing construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking this $19.2 million contract against similar troop housing projects requires access to detailed project data, including square footage, location, specific amenities, and construction timelines. The provided data is limited. However, the contract duration of 739 days (approximately two years) suggests a significant undertaking. The Department of Defense awards numerous construction contracts annually; comparing this project's cost per square foot or cost per bed to other barracks or dormitory projects of similar scale and complexity would provide a more robust value assessment. Such comparisons are often found in government accountability reports or industry analyses.

What are the potential risks associated with the undisclosed foreign awardees mentioned in the contract data?

The primary risk associated with undisclosed foreign awardees is a lack of transparency and potential difficulties in oversight and accountability. It can be challenging to verify the financial stability, security clearances, and compliance with U.S. regulations for foreign entities. This lack of clarity could introduce risks related to supply chain integrity, intellectual property protection, and adherence to ethical business practices. Furthermore, it complicates efforts to assess the true cost structure and identify potential vulnerabilities or conflicts of interest.

How does the firm fixed-price contract type mitigate cost risks for the government compared to other contract types?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide the greatest cost certainty for the government. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes all responsibility for cost overruns and is only entitled to the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This shifts the risk of unforeseen expenses from the government to the contractor. While this can lead to higher initial bid prices to account for contractor risk, it generally prevents the government from paying more than the negotiated price, unlike cost-reimbursement contracts where the government bears the risk of cost increases.

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

Historical spending on troop housing construction by the Department of the Army is substantial and fluctuates based on military readiness needs, infrastructure modernization efforts, and budget allocations. The Army consistently invests billions of dollars annually in military construction, including barracks, family housing, and other troop support facilities. This specific $19.2 million contract represents a single project within that larger spending context. Analyzing multi-year trends would reveal patterns related to major construction initiatives, base realignments, and the impact of global security environments on infrastructure investment priorities.

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: W912ER11R0005

Offers Received: 16

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: $21,354,435

Exercised Options: $19,184,335

Current Obligation: $19,184,335

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline