DoD's $40.4M specialty trade contract awarded to foreign entities shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,438,090 ($40.4M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-06-17

End Date: 2013-12-31

Contract Duration: 3,119 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 7.1.2 - 7.1.4

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 Key points: 1. Contract awarded to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" raises questions about domestic economic impact and oversight. 2. Long duration of 3119 days (over 8 years) suggests a need for ongoing performance monitoring. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type can offer cost certainty but may limit flexibility for evolving needs. 4. The contract's broad "All Other Specialty Trade Contractors" NAICS code indicates a wide range of potential services. 5. Lack of specific details on services rendered makes a direct value-for-money assessment challenging. 6. The absence of small business involvement warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is difficult due to the broad NAICS code and the designation of "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES." Without specific service details or comparisons to similar domestic contracts, it's hard to definitively assess if the $40.4 million represents a fair price. The long contract duration could indicate either consistent demand or a lack of competitive re-bidding, potentially impacting overall value.

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 award to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" implies that either foreign entities were the most competitive bidders, or the specific nature of the services sought favored international providers. The number of bidders is not specified, which limits a deeper analysis of the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers, the award to foreign entities means that domestic businesses and the associated workforce did not directly benefit from this particular contract.

Public Impact

Foreign entities likely benefited from this contract, providing specialized trade services. The services delivered are broadly categorized under specialty trade contracting, potentially supporting military infrastructure or operations. Geographic impact is unclear, but likely focused on areas where DoD operations or facilities require these specialized trades. Workforce implications are primarily for the foreign entities awarded the contract, with limited direct benefit to the U.S. workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" raises concerns about domestic economic impact and job creation.
Lack of specific service details hinders a clear understanding of the value delivered for the $40.4M spent.
The broad NAICS code could mask inefficiencies or a lack of targeted procurement.
Long contract duration without clear performance metrics could indicate potential for complacency or scope creep.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the Department of Defense.
The contract served a need within the Department of Defense for specialty trade services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad "Construction" and "Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services" sectors, specifically under specialty trade contracting. The market for such services is vast and diverse, encompassing everything from electrical work to specialized repairs. The Department of Defense is a significant consumer of these services, often requiring them for maintaining global infrastructure and operational readiness. Benchmarking is difficult due to the "miscellaneous foreign awardees" designation and the broad NAICS code.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the procurement was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual performance, making it impossible to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting oversight framework. The Inspector General's office would have jurisdiction to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed service descriptions and specific contractor identification. Accountability would be managed through contract performance reviews and adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Specialty Trade Services Procurement
Foreign Military Sales Support
Infrastructure Maintenance Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Specific Service Details
Award to Undefined Foreign Entities
Broad NAICS Code
Long Contract Duration Without Clear Re-competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 7.1.2 - 7.1.4

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 $40.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-06-17. End: 2013-12-31.

What specific specialty trade services were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 238990, "All Other Specialty Trade Contractors." This is a very broad category that can encompass a wide array of services, including but not limited to, concrete contractors, demolition, excavation, masonry, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, roofing, and painting. However, without further details from the contract award documents or performance reports, the precise nature of the services rendered for this $40.4 million award remains unspecified. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to assess the contract's effectiveness or compare its value to market rates for particular trades.

How does the $40.4 million cost compare to similar specialty trade contracts awarded by the DoD?

Directly comparing the $40.4 million cost is difficult without knowing the specific services rendered. The NAICS code 238990 is extremely broad. If the contract involved large-scale infrastructure projects or highly specialized technical services, the cost might be reasonable. Conversely, if it covered more routine maintenance or smaller-scale tasks, it could be considered high. Furthermore, the award to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" complicates benchmarking against typical domestic contracts, as labor costs, regulatory environments, and logistical considerations can differ significantly.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a large contract to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES"?

Awarding contracts to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" can introduce several risks. These include potential challenges in oversight and quality control due to geographical distance and differing regulatory standards. There may be increased logistical complexities and lead times for materials or personnel. Furthermore, there are often concerns about ensuring fair labor practices and adherence to security protocols. From a national security perspective, relying on foreign entities for critical services could also pose risks if geopolitical relations shift. Finally, it means that domestic businesses and their workforces do not directly benefit from the awarded funds.

Given the contract's duration (2005-2013), what does historical spending data reveal about this type of procurement?

The contract spanned from 2005 to 2013, a period encompassing significant military operations and infrastructure needs for the Department of Defense. Historical spending data from this era often shows large investments in support services, including construction and maintenance, to sustain operations in various theaters. While this specific contract's details are limited, the general trend during this time was a substantial allocation of resources towards contracting for a wide range of services to support military readiness and global presence. The long duration suggests a sustained requirement for the services provided.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place for this long-term contract?

For a contract of this duration (over 8 years), the Department of Defense would typically employ a range of oversight mechanisms. These would likely include contract officers representatives (CORs) responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and verifying deliverables. Regular performance reviews, site inspections, and milestone tracking would be standard. Given the firm-fixed-price nature, the focus would be on ensuring the contractor met the defined scope and quality standards within the agreed-upon price. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is difficult to gauge without specific performance reports.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,799,333

Exercised Options: $50,799,333

Current Obligation: $40,438,090

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline