Department of Defense awarded $17.3M for architectural services, with a 4415-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,287,550 ($17.3M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-05-13

End Date: 2020-06-14

Contract Duration: 4,415 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.4

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 Key points: 1. The contract's extended duration suggests a long-term need for architectural services. 2. A firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that cost risks are largely borne by the contractor. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, implying a broad search for qualified bidders. 4. The contract's value is spread over more than a decade, suggesting phased or ongoing project requirements. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541310 points to specialized architectural design services. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable architectural service contracts. The total award amount of $17.3 million over approximately 12 years (4415 days) averages to roughly $1.44 million per year. This figure needs to be assessed against the scale and complexity of the architectural services rendered. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if the contractor performed within expectations.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that the Department of the Army sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders (no: 2) suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing opportunities and potentially driving down costs, a low number of bidders could indicate a niche market or specific requirements that limited the pool of interested parties.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. This helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military installations and facilities managed by the Department of the Army, which will receive updated or new architectural designs. Services delivered include architectural design, planning, and potentially related consulting for various construction or renovation projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within areas where the Department of the Army operates or plans to develop facilities. Workforce implications could include employment opportunities for architects, drafters, and related design professionals within the winning contractor's organization and potentially in supporting roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long contract duration (4415 days) could lead to potential scope creep or changes in project requirements over time, impacting cost and efficiency.
With only two bidders, there's a risk that competition was not as robust as it could have been, potentially leading to less favorable pricing.
The specific nature of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' might introduce complexities related to international regulations, currency exchange, or logistical challenges.
Lack of detailed information on the specific architectural services provided makes it difficult to fully assess performance and value.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is a positive signal for a fair and transparent procurement process.
The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively.
The extended duration suggests a sustained need and commitment to infrastructure development or improvement by the Department of the Army.
The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' might indicate access to specialized international expertise or cost-effective solutions not readily available domestically.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the construction and defense industries, providing design and planning for facilities. This contract falls under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services category. The market for architectural services supporting government agencies is substantial, driven by ongoing infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and new construction projects. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost per square foot or per project for similar government architectural design contracts, considering factors like project complexity, location, and security requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and deliverables. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Engineering
Military Construction Projects
Architectural and Engineering Services (A&E)
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Army Corps of Engineers Design Services

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration may increase risk of scope creep and cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Limited number of bidders (2) suggests potentially reduced competition and less favorable pricing.
Award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' may introduce logistical, communication, and regulatory complexities.
Lack of specific project details hinders a thorough value-for-money assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. ABG 7.1.2 - 7.1.4

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 $17.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-05-13. End: 2020-06-14.

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

The provided data identifies the contract's purpose as 'Architectural Services' under NAICS code 541310. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the projects. These could range from designing new military barracks, renovating existing command centers, planning new airfields, or developing master plans for military bases. Without further details on the Statement of Work (SOW) or task orders issued against this contract, the precise scope of architectural work remains undefined. Understanding the specific projects would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of value and performance.

How does the average annual cost of this contract compare to similar architectural services for defense projects?

The contract's total value of $17.3 million over approximately 12 years (4415 days) equates to an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.44 million. To benchmark this, one would need to compare it against average annual spending for architectural services on similar-sized defense projects, considering factors like project complexity, geographic location (domestic vs. foreign), and specific service requirements (e.g., design-build vs. design-only). Given the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' designation, international rates might apply, potentially differing from domestic benchmarks. A detailed analysis would require access to a database of comparable contracts and their associated costs per service hour or per project phase.

What are the key risks associated with a contract awarded to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

Awarding contracts to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' can introduce several risks. These may include challenges related to navigating different legal and regulatory frameworks, potential difficulties in communication due to language barriers or time zone differences, complexities in payment processing and currency exchange, and increased logistical hurdles for oversight and site visits. There might also be heightened security vetting requirements for foreign personnel. Furthermore, geopolitical instability in the awardee's region could pose risks to contract continuity. The government must ensure robust contract management and communication protocols are in place to mitigate these potential issues.

What does the firm-fixed-price contract type imply about contractor performance and cost control?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type means the contractor agrees to a total price for a well-defined service or product. This shifts the majority of the cost risk from the government to the contractor. If the contractor's costs exceed the fixed price, they absorb the loss. Conversely, if costs are lower than anticipated, the contractor realizes a higher profit. For the government, FFP provides cost certainty, assuming the initial price was fair and reasonable. It incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and perform diligently to maximize their profit margin. However, it requires a very clear and detailed scope of work to avoid disputes or change orders.

Given the 4415-day duration, what are the implications for contract management and potential obsolescence of designs?

A contract duration of 4415 days (over 12 years) necessitates rigorous and continuous contract management. The Department of the Army must actively monitor progress, manage scope changes, and ensure the contractor remains compliant with all terms and conditions throughout this extended period. A significant implication is the potential for designs or specifications to become outdated due to technological advancements, evolving military requirements, or changes in building codes and standards over such a long timeframe. Proactive reviews and potential contract modifications may be required to keep the architectural work relevant and effective, which could impact the overall cost and schedule.

How does the limited number of bidders (2) impact the government's leverage in negotiating terms and pricing?

When only two bidders respond to a full and open competition, the government's negotiating leverage can be diminished compared to a scenario with numerous bidders. With a smaller pool of potential contractors, the government has fewer alternatives if negotiations fail with one of the bidders. This can potentially lead to less competitive pricing and less favorable terms, as the bidders may be aware of the limited competition. While the government still aims for fair and reasonable pricing, the absence of strong competitive pressure might allow bidders to offer higher prices or less flexible terms than they would in a more crowded marketplace.

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: $19,284,704

Exercised Options: $19,284,704

Current Obligation: $17,287,550

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline