DoD's Army Spends $47.1M on Architectural Services via Definitive Contract with Foreign Awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,149,537 ($47.1M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-08-21

End Date: 2023-12-30

Contract Duration: 6,340 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $47.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 SERVICES Key points: 1. Significant spending on architectural services highlights reliance on specialized expertise. 2. The contract's long duration (6340 days) suggests a sustained need for these services. 3. Lack of competition raises questions about potential overspending and limited market engagement. 4. The use of foreign awardees may introduce geopolitical or logistical considerations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $47.1M over approximately 17.5 years averages to about $2.7M annually. Without specific benchmarks for architectural services of this scale and complexity, it's difficult to definitively assess pricing. However, the lack of competition suggests potential for inflated costs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract is listed as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a limited competition approach. This severely restricts price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers as market forces are not fully leveraged.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of robust competition likely results in higher expenditures than could be achieved through a more open bidding process, impacting taxpayer value.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for architectural services due to the lack of competitive bidding. The long-term nature of the contract could lock the government into potentially suboptimal pricing for an extended period. Reliance on foreign awardees might present challenges in oversight, communication, and adherence to domestic standards.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Long contract duration
Foreign awardees
Limited transparency on pricing

Positive Signals

Definitive contract provides a clear framework
Firm Fixed Price contract type offers cost certainty

Sector Analysis

The $47.1M spent on architectural services falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Benchmarks for this specific sub-sector are highly variable based on project scope, location, and complexity, but significant spending without competition warrants scrutiny.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate any specific allocation or consideration for small businesses in this contract. The focus appears to be on larger, potentially foreign, entities capable of fulfilling the extensive architectural service requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' status suggests potential weaknesses in the justification for limited competition. Robust oversight is needed to ensure the necessity of this approach and to verify fair pricing and performance.

Related Government Programs

Architectural Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for cost overruns
Reliance on foreign entities
Long contract duration increases risk exposure
Limited transparency on selection criteria

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $47.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 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 $47.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-08-21. End: 2023-12-30.

What was the specific justification for limiting competition on this $47.1M architectural services contract, and were alternative competitive strategies considered?

The justification for limiting competition is crucial for understanding the value proposition. Without details, it's presumed there was a specific, documented reason, such as unique capabilities or urgent needs. However, the absence of competition inherently limits price discovery, potentially leading to suboptimal taxpayer value. Exploring alternative competitive strategies, even within a limited scope, could have yielded better pricing and broader market engagement.

What are the identified risks associated with awarding a 17.5-year architectural services contract to miscellaneous foreign awardees, and how are these risks being mitigated?

Risks include potential geopolitical instability affecting service delivery, currency exchange rate fluctuations impacting costs, differing legal and regulatory environments, and challenges in communication and cultural understanding. Mitigation strategies might involve robust contract clauses addressing these issues, performance bonds, clear communication protocols, and potentially escrow accounts for payments. The long duration amplifies these inherent risks.

How is the effectiveness and quality of the architectural services being measured and ensured throughout the contract's extensive duration, especially given the lack of competitive pressure?

Effectiveness and quality are typically ensured through detailed performance work statements, key performance indicators (KPIs), regular progress reviews, and independent quality assurance personnel. Given the lack of competition, the government must be particularly diligent in monitoring deliverables, enforcing contract terms, and conducting thorough performance evaluations to ensure the services meet requirements and provide value, despite the absence of market-driven incentives.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Architectural Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

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: $55,673,352

Exercised Options: $55,673,352

Current Obligation: $47,149,537

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline