DoD's $40.9M Architectural Services Contract Awarded to Foreign Entities Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,916,126 ($40.9M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-21

End Date: 2020-07-31

Contract Duration: 4,820 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded to miscellaneous foreign awardees, raising questions about domestic economic impact. 2. Significant contract duration of 4820 days (over 13 years) suggests long-term service needs. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541310 points to architectural services. 6. The contract's value of over $40 million over its lifespan warrants scrutiny for value for money.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $40.9 million over more than 13 years averages to approximately $3.1 million per year. Without specific details on the scope of architectural services provided, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the long duration and substantial total value suggest a significant engagement. The firm fixed-price nature provides predictability, but the lack of detailed performance metrics or cost breakdowns makes a definitive value-for-money assessment challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the Department of the Army sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders indicates some level of competition, but the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process are not detailed. A higher number of bidders typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value by encouraging a wide range of offers, potentially driving down prices through market forces.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army, is the primary beneficiary of these architectural services. Services likely include design, planning, and potentially oversight for military construction projects. The geographic impact is likely tied to Army installations requiring architectural expertise, potentially worldwide given the foreign awardees. The contract may indirectly support a global workforce of architects and related professionals, including those in foreign countries.

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 architectural projects undertaken and their impact.
Long contract duration could lead to scope creep or evolving requirements not fully captured in initial pricing.
The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation lacks specificity, hindering detailed analysis of contractor capabilities and track record.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair process to select the best offer.
Firm Fixed Price contract type offers cost certainty to the government.
The contract addresses a long-term need for architectural services within the Department of the Army.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the construction and defense industries. This contract falls under professional, scientific, and technical services, specifically NAICS code 541310. The market for architectural services supporting government infrastructure is substantial, with significant spending allocated annually. This particular contract represents a portion of the Department of the Army's broader investment in facility design and planning, likely supporting military readiness and operational infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). The awardees are listed as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' which strongly suggests that small businesses, particularly U.S.-based ones, are unlikely to be direct beneficiaries or subcontractors on this specific contract. This could represent a missed opportunity to support the domestic small business ecosystem within the architectural services field.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The firm fixed-price nature provides some level of financial oversight. Transparency regarding specific project deliverables and performance metrics would be crucial for comprehensive accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. However, the limited detail provided in the data restricts a full assessment of existing oversight mechanisms.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Architectural Services
Army Corps of Engineers Design Contracts
Military Construction Planning
Foreign Military Sales Support Services
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Specificity in Awardee Identification
Limited Transparency on Project Scope and Location
Potential for Missed Small Business Opportunities
Uncertainty Regarding Detailed Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 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 $40.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-21. End: 2020-07-31.

What specific architectural projects were undertaken using this $40.9 million contract, and what was the geographic distribution of these projects?

The provided data does not specify the exact architectural projects undertaken under this contract, nor does it detail the geographic distribution. Given the awardees are 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' and the contract is with the Department of the Army, projects could range from base infrastructure design to specialized facility planning at various Army installations globally. A deeper dive into contract line item numbers (CLINs) and task orders would be necessary to ascertain the specific scope and locations of services rendered. Without this granular information, it's impossible to assess the direct impact on specific military installations or communities.

How does the average annual cost of approximately $3.1 million for architectural services compare to industry benchmarks for similar government contracts?

Benchmarking the average annual cost of $3.1 million requires detailed comparison against contracts with similar scope, complexity, and geographic focus. The NAICS code 541310 (Architectural Services) encompasses a wide range of activities. Factors such as the type of facilities designed (e.g., barracks vs. high-security research labs), the level of detail required, and specific site conditions significantly influence pricing. Without knowing the specific deliverables and the complexity of the projects managed under this contract, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, for large-scale, long-term government architectural support, this figure might be within a reasonable range, assuming high complexity and significant project volume.

What were the specific criteria used to evaluate the two bidders, and how did the selection process ensure the best value was obtained?

The data indicates the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' with two bidders. However, the specific evaluation criteria and the selection process details are not provided. Typically, for architectural services, evaluation factors include technical approach, past performance, key personnel qualifications, and price. The 'best value' determination often involves a trade-off analysis between technical merit and cost. The fact that only two bids were received could suggest limited market interest or potentially a highly specialized requirement. Further analysis of the source selection plan and evaluation reports would be needed to confirm the robustness of the best-value determination.

What is the track record of the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' in fulfilling similar large-scale architectural contracts for the U.S. Department of Defense?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is too broad to assess the specific track record of the entities involved. This category could encompass multiple firms or a single entity operating under a general classification. To evaluate their past performance, it would be necessary to identify the specific awardee(s) and review their contract history with the DoD, looking at factors such as on-time delivery, adherence to budget (where applicable), quality of work, and any past disputes or performance issues. Without this specific identification, assessing their reliability and capability for large-scale architectural contracts is not possible.

Given the contract's duration of over 13 years, what mechanisms were in place to manage potential changes in scope, technology, or regulatory requirements?

The long duration (4820 days) of this firm fixed-price contract necessitates robust mechanisms for managing changes. While the firm fixed-price structure aims for cost certainty, contracts of this length typically include provisions for equitable adjustments through contract modifications (change orders) to accommodate significant shifts in scope, unforeseen site conditions, or evolving regulatory mandates. The contract's administration by the Department of the Army would involve oversight to ensure any changes are properly justified, priced, and documented. However, the specific clauses governing modifications and the process for handling scope changes are not detailed in the provided summary data.

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: $48,401,477

Exercised Options: $48,401,477

Current Obligation: $40,916,126

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline