DoD's $18.2M contract for architectural services awarded in 2009 shows long-term engagement with foreign awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,221,646 ($18.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-04-23

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,351 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 7.1.2 SERVICES & SECONDARY SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 SERVICES & SECONDARY SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's duration of over 6 years suggests a sustained need for architectural services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs by establishing a set payment amount. 4. The significant value points to complex or extensive architectural requirements. 5. The presence of foreign awardees may indicate specialized capabilities or specific geographic needs. 6. The contract's completion date in 2015 means current relevance needs further investigation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of architectural services provided. The total value of over $18 million spread across more than six years suggests a moderate annual spend. However, without comparable contracts for similar architectural projects within the Department of Defense or other agencies, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents excellent or questionable value. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that cost overruns were intended to be borne by the contractor, which can be a positive indicator for value if the work was completed successfully within budget.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the Department of the Army sought proposals from all responsible sources. The fact that it was competed broadly is a positive sign for price discovery and potentially achieving a competitive price. However, the number of bids received is not specified, which would provide further insight into the actual level of competition. A high number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government explores a wide range of options and receives competitive bids, potentially leading to lower prices and better quality services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military installations or facilities requiring architectural design and planning services. Services delivered include architectural design, potentially encompassing planning, development, and oversight of construction projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within areas where the Department of the Army has facilities requiring architectural support. Workforce implications could involve architects, engineers, and support staff employed by the awarded contractors, potentially including international personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the architectural services rendered makes it difficult to assess performance.
The long duration of the contract could indicate potential for scope creep or evolving requirements not fully captured initially.
The involvement of foreign awardees might introduce complexities in oversight, payment, or adherence to US standards.
The contract ended in 2015, raising questions about its continued relevance and whether it was a one-time need or part of an ongoing requirement.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The firm fixed-price contract type is generally favorable for cost control.
The substantial value indicates the importance and scale of the architectural services required by the Army.
The contract's completion suggests the project or services were delivered as planned.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Architectural Services sector, a subset of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is crucial for government infrastructure development and maintenance. The market for architectural services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. The $18.2 million value for a multi-year contract is significant, suggesting it was likely for a substantial project or a series of related projects, potentially involving large-scale military facilities or complex designs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against the size and complexity of the projects undertaken.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, as the 'ss' field is false. Furthermore, the 'sb' field is also false, suggesting no specific small business participation goals were mandated. The contract was awarded to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' which further implies that small businesses, particularly domestic ones, were unlikely to be direct recipients of this prime contract. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not detailed here, but typically, larger prime contracts may include provisions for subcontracting to smaller firms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army contracting officers and technical monitors. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, where the contractor is responsible for delivering the specified architectural services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Facility Engineering Services
Department of Defense Architecture and Engineering Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Foreign awardees
Lack of specific service details
Contract completed in 2015

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.2 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 $18.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-23. End: 2015-09-30.

What specific architectural projects or services were covered under this $18.2 million contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Architectural Services' (NAICS code 541310) awarded by the Department of the Army. However, the specific projects or the detailed scope of work are not itemized in the given data. Such services could range from designing new military facilities, renovating existing structures, providing master planning for bases, or offering specialized engineering and design consultations. Without further documentation, such as the contract's statement of work or task orders, the precise nature of the architectural services remains unspecified. The significant value suggests it was likely for substantial or numerous architectural endeavors over its more than six-year duration.

How did the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' perform compared to potential domestic architectural firms?

The provided data does not include performance metrics or comparative analysis between the foreign awardees and any domestic firms that may have bid or performed similar work. Assessing performance would require access to contract performance reports, quality assessments, and potentially past performance reviews. The fact that foreign awardees were selected suggests they may have offered unique capabilities, competitive pricing, or were strategically located for the specific needs of the Department of the Army at the time. Without specific performance data, it's impossible to definitively state how they performed relative to domestic alternatives.

What were the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this duration and value?

For a firm fixed-price contract of this magnitude ($18.2 million) and duration (over 6 years), the primary risk for the contractor is the potential for cost overruns if the scope of work expands or unforeseen challenges arise, without a corresponding increase in contract price. For the government, risks include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if costs escalate, or the contractor becoming financially distressed, impacting project completion. Additionally, for long-duration contracts, there's a risk that the initial price may not accurately reflect market conditions or the true cost of services towards the end of the contract term. Effective government oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks.

How does this contract's spending compare to typical annual spending on architectural services by the Department of Defense?

The total value of this contract is $18.2 million over approximately 6.5 years (April 2009 to September 2015). This averages to roughly $2.8 million per year. The Department of Defense (DoD) is a massive organization with extensive infrastructure needs globally. Annual spending on architectural and engineering services across the entire DoD can run into the billions of dollars. Therefore, this specific contract, while substantial for a single award, represents a relatively small fraction of the DoD's overall annual expenditure on such services. Benchmarking requires comparing it to similar-sized projects or specific regional needs rather than the entire DoD budget.

What factors might have led to the selection of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' for this architectural services contract?

Several factors could have led to the selection of foreign awardees. These might include specialized architectural expertise not readily available domestically, unique knowledge of local conditions or regulations in a specific foreign region where the services were needed, or potentially more competitive pricing offered by foreign firms. International partnerships or agreements could also play a role. The Department of the Army might have had specific requirements tied to overseas operations or installations that made foreign firms a more suitable choice. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation suggests a grouping of entities rather than a single large foreign firm.

Were there any specific performance issues or successes documented for this contract given its long duration?

The provided data does not contain specific details regarding the performance outcomes, successes, or issues encountered during the execution of this contract. Contract performance is typically documented through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar internal government evaluations. Without access to these reports or further narrative descriptions of the project's completion, it is impossible to assess whether the services met or exceeded expectations, or if any significant challenges arose. The contract's completion by its scheduled end date is a basic indicator of delivery, but not of quality or efficiency.

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: $18,337,734

Exercised Options: $18,337,734

Current Obligation: $18,221,646

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline