DoD's $17M Architectural Services Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,982,481 ($17.0M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-04-23

End Date: 2025-12-30

Contract Duration: 6,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 7.1.2 & SECONDARY SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.0 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 & SECONDARY SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's value of over $17 million for architectural services indicates a significant investment in infrastructure or facility design. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, this suggests a robust bidding process aimed at achieving competitive pricing. 3. The duration of the contract (over 6000 days) points to a long-term need for architectural expertise, potentially for large-scale projects. 4. The fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty for the government, shifting performance risk to the contractor. 5. The inclusion of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' raises questions about the specific capabilities and geographic focus of the selected entities. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541310 confirms the focus on architectural services. 7. The contract's start date in 2009 and end date in 2025 suggest a phased approach or a series of task orders over an extended period.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of architectural services. However, a $17 million award over a 15-year period averages approximately $1.13 million per year. This figure needs to be compared against the complexity and scale of the projects undertaken. The firm fixed-price nature provides budget predictability, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and efficiency of the delivered architectural designs and the contractor's ability to manage costs within the agreed price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. 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 price discovery and ensuring fair access to government contracts, a low number of bidders could still limit the competitive pressure on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to secure the best value for taxpayers by encouraging a wide range of offers. However, with only two bidders, the potential for significant cost savings through intense rivalry may have been constrained.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized architectural expertise for its facilities and infrastructure needs. The services delivered likely encompass design, planning, and potentially oversight for construction or renovation projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated on military installations or areas where the Department of the Army operates. The contract supports the architectural services industry, potentially involving a workforce of designers, engineers, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' and their qualifications.
Potential for increased logistical or communication challenges when working with foreign entities.
Limited insight into the competitive landscape with only two bidders for a significant contract.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, promoting a fair and accessible bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration suggests a strategic, long-term planning approach by the agency.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the broader construction and engineering industries. This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on design and planning. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of such services, requiring expertise for military bases, operational facilities, and administrative buildings worldwide. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar government facility designs or the total annual spending on architectural services by large federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. Without explicit set-aside goals or reporting on subcontracting, it's difficult to assess the direct benefit to small businesses from this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed project-specific information and performance reviews may be less publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Architectural and Engineering Services
Military Construction Program
Federal Facilities Design and Planning Contracts
Architectural Services for Government Agencies

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition impacting price discovery.
Vetting and oversight of foreign awardees may be complex.
Lack of specific project details limits value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.0 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 7.1.2 & 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 $17.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-23. End: 2025-12-30.

What specific types of architectural projects has this contract supported for the Department of the Army?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the architectural projects undertaken under this contract. However, given the awardee type ('Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees') and the agency ('Department of Defense'), it is plausible that the services relate to the design, planning, and potentially renovation or new construction of military facilities, barracks, command centers, or support infrastructure. The long duration (over 15 years) suggests that the contract may have encompassed multiple projects or a large-scale, multi-phase development. Further investigation into task orders issued against this contract would be necessary to ascertain the specific project types and their scope.

How does the per-year cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar government architectural services?

The contract's total value of $17,018,248.17 over a period of 6095 days (approximately 16.7 years) equates to an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.02 million. Benchmarking this against industry standards for government architectural services requires detailed information on the complexity, scale, and specific services rendered. General benchmarks for architectural fees often range from 5% to 15% of construction costs. Without knowing the associated construction values or the specific services (e.g., conceptual design, detailed engineering, site surveys), a direct comparison is difficult. However, for large-scale federal projects, this annual figure might be considered moderate, depending heavily on the project portfolio.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding architectural services 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, and complexities in ensuring compliance with U.S. security standards and ethical practices. There could also be risks associated with currency fluctuations if payments are made in foreign denominations, and potential geopolitical risks that might affect contract performance or the stability of the awardees. Furthermore, vetting the capabilities and reliability of foreign entities may require more extensive due diligence compared to domestic contractors.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, what is the potential for cost overruns or savings for the government?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide the government with cost certainty. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor assumes the primary risk for cost overruns. If the contractor's costs exceed the agreed-upon price, they absorb the loss. Conversely, if their costs are lower than anticipated, they retain the profit. This structure incentivizes the contractor to manage their expenses efficiently and complete the work within budget. For the government, the primary risk is not cost overrun but rather that the contractor might cut corners on quality or scope to protect their profit margin if unforeseen challenges arise, which necessitates robust performance monitoring.

How has the spending on architectural services by the Department of the Army evolved over the life of this contract?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending trends for the Department of the Army's architectural services. To analyze the evolution of spending, one would need access to broader contract databases or agency budget reports covering the period from 2009 to 2025. This would allow for tracking the total annual obligations for architectural services, identifying fluctuations, and understanding whether this $17 million contract represents a consistent investment or a deviation from historical patterns. Factors such as changes in military readiness requirements, infrastructure modernization initiatives, and overall defense budgets would influence such spending patterns.

What does the limited competition (2 bidders) imply about the market for specialized architectural services for the DoD?

A limited number of bidders, such as the two observed in this 'full and open competition' award, can suggest several market dynamics. It might indicate a niche market where only a few firms possess the highly specialized skills, clearances, or experience required for Department of Defense architectural projects. Alternatively, it could reflect high barriers to entry, such as stringent pre-qualification requirements, significant bonding capacity needs, or complex proposal preparation demands that deter a larger pool of potential bidders. This limited competition could potentially lead to less aggressive pricing than if more firms were vying for the contract, although the 'full and open' nature still theoretically allows any qualified entity to participate.

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,069,289

Exercised Options: $17,069,289

Current Obligation: $16,982,481

Actual Outlays: $84,407

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline