DoD's $23.9M Architectural Services Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,885,080 ($23.9M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-02-20

End Date: 2021-08-26

Contract Duration: 4,570 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 7.1.2 SERVICES&SECONDARY SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 SERVICES&SECONDARY SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in architectural services for the Department of Defense. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a broad market engagement, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The duration of the contract suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The award to foreign entities raises questions about domestic capacity and economic impact. 5. The firm fixed-price structure aims to control costs and provide predictability. 6. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $23.9 million contract for architectural services is challenging without specific project details or comparable domestic contracts. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to manage costs, but the duration of over 12 years implies potential for cost escalation if not meticulously managed. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' also introduces complexity in assessing value compared to domestic benchmarks, as labor costs, regulatory environments, and overhead can differ significantly.

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 Defense sought bids from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing choice and achieving competitive pricing, the limited number of bidders could suggest specific niche requirements or barriers to entry for other potential firms.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a wide range of offers. However, with only two bidders, the potential for truly aggressive pricing might be constrained compared to scenarios with numerous competitive bids.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of Defense projects requiring specialized architectural expertise for foreign installations or operations. Services delivered include architectural design, planning, and potentially related consulting for military facilities. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where the Department of Defense has foreign operations or interests. Workforce implications could involve specialized architectural talent, potentially sourced internationally, impacting domestic job creation in this sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to foreign entities may limit opportunities for U.S. small businesses in the architectural services sector.
Lack of specific details on the 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' makes it difficult to assess their track record and capacity.
The long contract duration could indicate potential for scope creep or evolving requirements that may not be fully captured in the initial pricing.
The absence of small business set-aside information raises concerns about compliance with federal small business utilization goals.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests an effort to find the most qualified and cost-effective solution.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating budget risks.
The contract's duration implies a sustained need and commitment to critical architectural services for defense infrastructure.
The award to foreign entities might leverage specialized expertise or cost efficiencies not readily available domestically for specific overseas projects.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the construction and engineering industry, supporting both public and private infrastructure development. Federal spending in this area often supports military base construction, upgrades, and planning, as well as other government facilities. The market size for architectural services is substantial, with significant portions allocated to government contracts. This particular contract fits within the broader category of professional services supporting defense infrastructure, where specialized design and planning are paramount.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. This means that the competition was open to all responsible sources, including large businesses. The lack of a specific small business set-aside does not preclude small businesses from participating as subcontractors. However, without explicit subcontracting plans or goals detailed in the award data, it is difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses will benefit from this contract. Further review of subcontracting reports would be necessary to determine the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Foreign Military Sales Support
Architectural and Engineering Services Contracts
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential for geopolitical risks due to foreign awardees.
Challenges in oversight and quality control for overseas projects.
Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
Lack of small business subcontracting data requires further review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 7.1.2 SERVICES&SECONDARY 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 $23.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-02-20. End: 2021-08-26.

What is the specific nature of the architectural services provided under this contract, and where are these services being performed?

The provided data indicates the primary service is 'Architectural Services' (NAICS code 541310) with secondary services listed under 'SERVICES&SECONDARY SERVICES'. However, the specific details of these services and their exact locations are not elaborated in the abbreviated data. Given the awardee is 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' and the agency is the Department of Defense, it is highly probable that these services relate to architectural design, planning, and potentially oversight for military installations or facilities located outside the United States. The contract's duration of over 12 years suggests a need for ongoing or phased architectural support for potentially complex or long-term projects abroad.

How does the $23.9 million contract value compare to typical spending on architectural services by the Department of Defense?

The $23.9 million contract value for architectural services is a substantial amount, but its significance within the Department of Defense's overall spending requires context. The DoD has a vast global footprint and numerous construction and renovation projects annually. While this figure is significant for a single contract, it represents a fraction of the total annual budget allocated to facilities, infrastructure, and related professional services. Benchmarking requires comparing it against similar large-scale architectural contracts for military projects, both domestic and international, over similar timeframes. Without more data on comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending relative to the DoD's typical investment in such services.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

Awarding a $23.9 million contract to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' presents several potential risks. Firstly, there are geopolitical and security risks associated with engaging foreign entities, especially if the projects involve sensitive military installations. Secondly, oversight and quality control can be more challenging due to distance and differing regulatory environments. Thirdly, there's a risk of currency fluctuations impacting the final cost if payments are not managed carefully. Lastly, there's a potential impact on domestic job creation and economic benefits if U.S. firms with similar capabilities are overlooked or unable to compete effectively.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, what is the government's exposure to cost overruns?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is designed to provide the government with the most cost certainty and to place the risk of cost overruns on the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor agrees to a fixed price for the work, regardless of their actual costs incurred. Therefore, the government's exposure to cost overruns is minimal, assuming the scope of work is clearly defined and does not change significantly. Any deviations or additional work would typically require formal contract modifications, which would then be negotiated and priced separately. The primary risk for the government with FFP contracts lies in ensuring the initial price is fair and reasonable and that the scope is well-defined to prevent contractor claims for unforeseen costs.

What does the limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition suggest about this contract?

A limited number of bidders, such as two, in a full and open competition for a contract valued at $23.9 million can suggest several possibilities. It might indicate that the specific architectural services required are highly specialized, niche, or require unique qualifications that only a few firms possess. Alternatively, it could point to significant barriers to entry, such as stringent pre-qualification requirements, complex security clearances, or the need for specialized equipment or international operational experience. It might also suggest that the contract's geographic location or specific project demands made it less attractive to a broader range of potential bidders. From a taxpayer perspective, fewer bidders can sometimes lead to less competitive pricing compared to scenarios with multiple, robust offers.

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: SEALED BID

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, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,964,662

Exercised Options: $32,964,662

Current Obligation: $23,885,080

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline