DoD spent over $14.7M on secondary services from miscellaneous foreign awardees over a decade

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,724,680 ($14.7M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-02-06

End Date: 2016-02-29

Contract Duration: 3,675 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 7.1.2 SECONDARY SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 SECONDARY SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized support services. 2. Awardees were foreign entities, suggesting a global sourcing strategy for specific needs. 3. The contract spanned a decade, indicating a long-term requirement for these services. 4. The broad nature of 'All Other Specialty Trade Contractors' implies diverse service delivery. 5. A single award for this duration and value warrants scrutiny of performance and necessity. 6. The absence of small business participation is noted.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging due to the 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation and the broad 'specialty trade contractors' category. The firm fixed-price structure suggests cost certainty, but the lack of specific service details makes a direct value-for-money assessment difficult without further context on the necessity and quality of the services provided. Compared to domestic contracts for similar broad categories, the per-dollar value is not immediately indicative of over or underpayment without understanding the unique nature of foreign-sourced specialty services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. However, the fact that it resulted in a single award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' raises questions about the breadth of participation from qualified entities, especially concerning the specific niche of specialty trade contractors. The competitive process should ideally have yielded a range of proposals, but the outcome suggests either limited qualified bidders or a strategic decision to select a specific foreign entity.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers by fostering price discovery and potentially lowering costs. However, in this instance, the outcome of a single foreign awardee means the full potential benefits of broad competition might not have been realized, particularly if domestic capabilities were overlooked or not competitively pursued.

Public Impact

Foreign entities providing specialized trade services benefited from this contract. The services delivered were broadly categorized under specialty trade contracting, supporting unspecified Department of Defense operations. The geographic impact is primarily on the foreign awardees' operations, with indirect implications for U.S. military readiness where these services were applied. Workforce implications are concentrated among the foreign awardees, with no direct U.S. job creation specified.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific nature of 'secondary services' and 'specialty trade contractors'.
Potential for cost overruns or performance issues given the decade-long duration and broad service category.
Limited visibility into the performance metrics and quality assurance for foreign-based contractors.
Unclear if domestic small businesses were considered or had opportunities to bid.
The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation lacks specificity, hindering detailed analysis.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
Full and open competition suggests an attempt to secure competitive pricing.
Long contract duration indicates a sustained need and potentially stable support.
Awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad 'Construction' or 'Services' sector, specifically under specialty trade contractors. The market for such services is diverse, ranging from highly specialized technical skills to general maintenance and repair. The size of the market for foreign-sourced specialty trade contractors for defense purposes is difficult to quantify but likely depends on specific operational needs and geopolitical considerations. This contract represents a portion of the DoD's overall spending on outsourced support services, which is a significant component of its operational budget.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting to small businesses. The lack of small business participation suggests that the scope of work was either not conducive to small business involvement or that opportunities were not actively pursued or awarded to them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is limited by the available data, particularly concerning the specific services rendered and the performance of the foreign awardees. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Services Contracts
Specialty Trade Services
Foreign Military Sales Support
Construction and Engineering Services
Logistics and Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Specificity in Service Description
Foreign Awardee Performance Risk
Limited Domestic Competition Data
Long Contract Duration Without Clear Milestones
Potential for Undefined Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 7.1.2 SECONDARY SERVICES

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 $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-02-06. End: 2016-02-29.

What specific 'secondary services' were provided under this contract, and how did they support Department of the Army operations?

The provided data categorizes the contract under '7.1.2 SECONDARY SERVICES' and 'nd': 'All Other Specialty Trade Contractors,' with a Product Service Code (PSC) left blank. This broad classification makes it impossible to determine the specific services rendered. These could range from highly specialized technical support, construction-related services, maintenance, repair, or other operational support functions essential to the Army's mission. Without more granular data, the exact nature and impact of these services remain undefined, hindering a precise assessment of their necessity and effectiveness.

How was the performance of the 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' monitored and evaluated over the decade-long contract period?

The data does not specify the performance monitoring mechanisms or evaluation criteria used for this contract. Typically, government contracts include performance standards, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and regular reviews. Given the long duration and foreign nature of the awardees, robust oversight would be critical. The effectiveness of this oversight is unknown without access to performance reports, acceptance records, and any contract modifications or disputes that may have arisen. The firm fixed-price nature might incentivize cost control but could also lead to compromises in quality if not strictly managed.

What was the rationale for sourcing these specialty trade services from foreign awardees instead of domestic contractors?

The rationale for selecting foreign awardees is not detailed in the provided data. Potential reasons could include unique expertise or capabilities not readily available domestically, strategic geopolitical considerations, cost-effectiveness in specific regions, or the operational context requiring support in foreign locations. The 'full and open competition' aspect suggests that domestic firms could have bid, implying that foreign entities were either more competitive on price or offered superior technical solutions that met the Army's specific requirements. Further investigation into the solicitation documents and award decision would be needed to confirm the precise justification.

Can the $14.7 million expenditure be benchmarked against similar contracts for specialty trade services, either domestically or internationally?

Benchmarking this $14.7 million expenditure is challenging due to the broad categorization ('All Other Specialty Trade Contractors') and the 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation. Direct comparisons are difficult without knowing the specific services provided. If these were standard construction or maintenance services, the cost per year ($1.47 million) might be comparable to some domestic contracts, but the foreign element introduces variables like logistics, currency exchange, and different labor markets. Without more specific service details and market data for foreign specialty contractors supporting defense, a precise benchmark is not feasible.

What were the risks associated with awarding a decade-long contract for undefined specialty services to foreign entities, and how were they mitigated?

Key risks include potential performance failures, cost overruns (despite fixed price, due to scope creep or unforeseen issues), geopolitical instability affecting service delivery, currency fluctuations, and challenges in legal recourse or dispute resolution with foreign entities. Mitigation strategies might have included stringent contract clauses, performance bonds, regular site inspections (if feasible), clear communication protocols, and contingency planning. The long duration amplifies these risks, making effective contract management and oversight paramount, the details of which are not provided.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Secondary Services' or 'Specialty Trade Contractors' by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract compare?

The provided data only details this single contract. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need access to broader contract databases covering the Department of the Army's procurement history. Analyzing trends in spending on secondary services and specialty trades over multiple fiscal years, across different contract types, and with various awardee types (domestic vs. foreign, large vs. small business) would be necessary. This contract's $14.7 million over ten years represents an average of $1.47 million annually, which could be significant or minor depending on the overall budget allocation for such services.

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: 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: $17,582,886

Exercised Options: $17,582,886

Current Obligation: $14,724,680

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline