DoD's Army Awards $10.1M for Architectural Services Under Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,089,698 ($10.1M)
Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-11-07
End Date: 2013-12-31
Contract Duration: 2,611 days
Daily Burn Rate: $3.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: TITLE I, 7.1.2-7.1.3
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $10.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: TITLE I, 7.1.2-7.1.3 Key points: 1. Spending of $10.1M over 7 years for architectural services. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts risk to the contractor. 4. No explicit mention of small business participation, requiring further investigation.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $10.1M over 7 years averages approximately $1.44M annually. Benchmarking this against similar architectural services contracts would be necessary to determine if this represents a fair price.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which typically allows for the widest possible range of bidders and can lead to more competitive pricing. The award to DCA suggests they were the most advantageous offer.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality.
Public Impact
Taxpayers may benefit from competitive pricing due to the full and open competition method. The duration of the contract (7 years) indicates a long-term need for these architectural services. The specific nature of the architectural services and their impact on military infrastructure are not detailed.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detail on small business participation.
- Need for benchmarking against similar contracts to assess value.
- Limited information on the specific architectural services provided.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts risk to contractor.
Sector Analysis
Architectural services are crucial for designing and overseeing the construction of facilities. Spending in this sector can vary significantly based on infrastructure needs and government investment cycles. This contract represents a moderate investment over a long period.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small businesses were not specifically targeted or prioritized in this award, as the 'sb' field is false. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense. Standard oversight mechanisms for federal contracts would apply, but specific details on accountability for this award are not provided.
Related Government Programs
- Architectural Services
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Lack of detailed scope of work.
- Absence of small business participation data.
- Need for price benchmarking.
- Limited information on contractor performance history.
Tags
architectural-services, department-of-defense, dca, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $10.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. TITLE I, 7.1.2-7.1.3
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 $10.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-11-07. End: 2013-12-31.
What specific architectural services were procured under this contract, and how do they align with the Army's strategic infrastructure goals?
The provided data does not specify the exact architectural services rendered. These could range from design and planning for new military bases or facilities to renovations and upgrades of existing structures. Understanding the specific scope is crucial to assessing their alignment with the Army's long-term infrastructure development and modernization strategies.
What was the competitive landscape like for this 'full and open' solicitation, and did the number of bids received influence the final price?
While the contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' the data does not specify the number of bids received or the range of proposed prices. A robust competitive environment with multiple strong bids typically drives prices down. Without this information, it's difficult to definitively assess the price discovery effectiveness of the competition.
How does the $10.1M expenditure over seven years compare to industry benchmarks for similar architectural services, and what is the projected return on investment for the government?
Benchmarking this contract's cost against similar architectural services contracts awarded by government agencies or private sector entities of comparable size and scope is essential. The return on investment is difficult to quantify without knowing the specific projects undertaken and their long-term benefits, such as improved operational efficiency or enhanced military readiness.
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: 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, Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $12,134,905
Exercised Options: $12,134,905
Current Obligation: $10,089,698
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-11-07
Current End Date: 2013-12-31
Potential End Date: 2013-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-01-28
More Contracts from Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
- Additional Services Mca-Funded — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W27p4a05c0002} Bottled Water — $480.1M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gy007c0053} Rule of LAW — $372.4M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gdw07d4021} Reconstruction Security Support Services (rsss) — $188.8M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gxy06c0094} AL Qudas GAS Turbine Expansion — $169.5M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)