DoD's $37.7M in Architectural Services awarded to foreign entities over 11 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $37,705,172 ($37.7M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-09

End Date: 2018-10-31

Contract Duration: 4,193 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TITLE I - 7.1.2-7.1.3 FY06

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $37.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: TITLE I - 7.1.2-7.1.3 FY06 Key points: 1. Contract awarded to miscellaneous foreign awardees, raising questions about domestic economic impact. 2. Long contract duration of over 11 years suggests a sustained need for architectural services. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type indicates price certainty but may limit flexibility. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified bidders. 5. Two awardees received the contract, implying a moderate level of competition for this specific award. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541310 points to specialized architectural services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the specific nature of architectural services and the foreign awardees. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the Department of Defense. However, without detailed breakdowns of the services rendered and comparison to similar domestic contracts, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult. The long duration could indicate either good value or a lack of more agile contracting options.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is generally positive for price discovery. However, the data indicates only two awardees, which might suggest limited participation or a highly specialized niche. The extent to which this competition truly drove down prices or ensured the best possible value is not fully evident from the provided data alone.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to maximize taxpayer value by ensuring a wide pool of potential contractors can bid, theoretically leading to more competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized architectural services for its projects. Projects likely involve design and planning for military facilities or infrastructure. Geographic impact is likely tied to the locations of DoD facilities requiring architectural support. Workforce implications may involve specialized architectural and engineering professionals, potentially including foreign nationals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential lack of direct benefit to U.S. small businesses due to foreign awardees.
Limited transparency on the specific qualifications and past performance of foreign awardees.
Long contract duration could lead to scope creep or evolving requirements not fully captured in initial pricing.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair process.
Firm Fixed Price contract provides budget predictability.
Sustained award over a long period indicates a consistent need and potentially reliable service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Architectural Services sector, a subset of professional, scientific, and technical services. The market for architectural services is diverse, ranging from small local firms to large international corporations. Federal spending in this area typically supports infrastructure development, facility design, and planning for government agencies. Benchmarking requires comparison to similar large-scale architectural contracts, often influenced by project complexity, location, and security requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Given the awardees are described as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', it is unlikely that U.S. small businesses would have been directly involved as prime contractors. Subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses are not specified but would depend on the nature of the work and the foreign awardees' procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for Department of Defense contracts typically involves contract officers, program managers, and potentially Inspector General investigations. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Accountability measures would be tied to performance metrics and adherence to the contract terms. The specific oversight mechanisms for contracts awarded to foreign entities may involve additional layers of review.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Architectural and Engineering Services
Foreign Military Sales Support
Federal Facilities Planning

Risk Flags

Foreign Awardee
Long Contract Duration
Limited Competition Indicated (2 Awardees)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $37.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. TITLE I - 7.1.2-7.1.3 FY06

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 $37.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-09. End: 2018-10-31.

What specific types of architectural projects were undertaken under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the architectural projects. However, given the awarding agency is the Department of Defense and the NAICS code is 541310 (Architectural Services), the projects likely involved the design, planning, and potentially oversight of military facilities, infrastructure, or related installations. This could range from new construction designs to renovations, master planning, or specialized facility assessments. Further investigation into contract line item numbers (CLINs) or task orders would be necessary to detail the specific projects.

How does the average annual spending on this contract compare to other similar architectural service contracts awarded by the DoD?

The total award amount is approximately $37.7 million over a duration of roughly 11 years (from May 2007 to October 2018). This averages to about $3.4 million per year. To compare this, one would need to analyze the average annual spending on similar architectural service contracts awarded by the DoD during the same period. Factors like contract type (e.g., IDIQ vs. definitive), scope of work, and geographic location significantly influence spending. Without a benchmark of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding architectural services to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees'?

Awarding contracts to foreign entities can introduce several risks. These may include challenges in ensuring compliance with U.S. security standards and regulations, potential difficulties in communication and coordination due to time zone differences or language barriers, and complexities in legal recourse or dispute resolution. Furthermore, there might be concerns regarding intellectual property protection and the transfer of sensitive design information. The 'miscellaneous' designation also implies a lack of established relationship or vetting, potentially increasing vetting risks.

What was the rationale for awarding this contract to foreign entities rather than domestic firms?

The rationale for awarding this contract to foreign entities is not explicitly stated in the provided data. However, 'full and open competition' suggests that foreign firms were considered eligible and potentially offered the best value, technical solution, or specialized expertise required for the specific architectural needs of the Department of Defense. It's possible that the projects were located overseas, or that specific foreign firms possessed unique capabilities or cost advantages that made them the most competitive bidders in this particular procurement.

What is the historical spending trend for architectural services by the Department of the Army under similar NAICS codes?

The provided data focuses on a single contract awarded in 2007. To assess historical spending trends for architectural services by the Department of the Army under NAICS code 541310, a broader analysis of federal procurement data (e.g., FPDS) would be required. This would involve examining all contracts awarded for architectural services by the Army over multiple fiscal years, identifying patterns in award amounts, number of competitors, contract types, and the types of services procured. Such an analysis would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable.

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, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,968,129

Exercised Options: $38,968,129

Current Obligation: $37,705,172

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline