DoD's $35M contract for architectural services awarded to foreign entities over 14 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,167,435 ($35.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-05

End Date: 2023-12-30

Contract Duration: 5,321 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 7.1.2 - 7.1.3SECONDARY SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 7.1.2 - 7.1.3SECONDARY SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in architectural services over a long duration. 2. Award to miscellaneous foreign awardees suggests a potentially limited domestic supplier pool or specific expertise sought. 3. The long performance period (over 14 years) indicates a sustained need for these services. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 5. The contract's broad scope for 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' warrants scrutiny regarding specific service delivery and oversight. 6. Analysis of value-for-money requires benchmarking against similar domestic architectural service contracts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of approximately $35.17 million over more than 14 years averages around $2.4 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale architectural service contracts is challenging without more specific details on the nature of the services rendered. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost predictability, but the long duration could mask potential inefficiencies or scope creep if not actively managed. The award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' raises questions about whether domestic firms were considered or if specialized international expertise was a prerequisite.

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 offers. However, the specific designation of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' suggests that the competition may have attracted or been limited to international entities. The number of bidders is not specified, which makes it difficult to fully assess the intensity of the competition. A robust competition typically leads to better pricing and service innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a wide range of potential providers. However, the outcome of this specific competition, particularly with foreign awardees, needs further examination to confirm if it truly resulted in optimal pricing and performance compared to domestic alternatives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the foreign architectural firms that received the contract awards, providing them with significant revenue. The services delivered are architectural, potentially encompassing design, planning, and oversight for various Department of the Army projects. The geographic impact is not specified but could extend to areas where the Department of the Army has facilities or operational needs. Workforce implications would primarily affect the employees of the awarded foreign firms, potentially involving architects, engineers, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of clarity on the specific services provided under 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' hinders detailed performance assessment.
The extended contract duration (over 14 years) increases the risk of cost overruns or scope creep if not rigorously managed.
Potential challenges in oversight and communication due to the foreign nature of the awardees.
Limited information on the number of bidders makes it difficult to ascertain the true level of competition and its impact on pricing.
The absence of small business subcontracting data raises questions about opportunities for smaller domestic firms.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting an effort to find the best value.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating budget risks.
The long duration indicates a consistent and sustained need for these architectural services by the Department of the Army.
The contract's significant value suggests the provision of substantial and potentially critical architectural support.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Architectural Services sector (NAICS code 541310), which is a component of the broader Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. The AEC industry is substantial, with significant government spending allocated annually for design and planning services. This contract represents a portion of the Department of Defense's overall spending on professional services, highlighting the government's reliance on external expertise for specialized functions like architectural design, particularly for complex or geographically dispersed projects.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses, particularly domestic ones, may have been limited unless they were part of a joint venture or subcontracted by the foreign awardees, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Given the award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees,' specific oversight challenges related to international contract management, communication, and compliance may exist. Transparency is limited by the available data, and it is unclear if an Inspector General (IG) investigation or specific audit has been conducted for this contract. Accountability would hinge on the performance metrics and reporting requirements stipulated in the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Architectural Services Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support Services
Professional Services Contracts
Department of the Army Design and Engineering Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for increased oversight complexity due to foreign awardees.
Risk of cost escalation or scope creep over the long contract duration.
Limited transparency regarding specific services and competition details.
Uncertainty regarding the benchmarking of value-for-money against domestic alternatives.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 7.1.2 - 7.1.3SECONDARY 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 $35.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-05. End: 2023-12-30.

What specific architectural services were rendered under this contract, and were they critical to specific military projects?

The provided data classifies the contract under NAICS code 541310 (Architectural Services) and lists the description as 'SECONDARY SERVICES'. This broad classification, coupled with the designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact nature of the architectural services. These could range from preliminary design and feasibility studies to detailed architectural plans for facilities, infrastructure, or specialized military installations. Without further details on the contract's statement of work or task orders, it's impossible to determine if these services were critical to specific, high-priority military projects. The long duration and substantial value suggest a significant scope, but the specifics remain opaque.

How does the average annual spending of approximately $2.4 million compare to similar architectural service contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking the average annual spending of approximately $2.4 million requires comparison with similar contracts for architectural services awarded by the Department of Defense. However, the provided data lacks the granularity to make a precise comparison. Factors such as the complexity of projects, geographic location, specific services required (e.g., design, planning, oversight), and the duration of the contract significantly influence pricing. Contracts for large-scale, complex military infrastructure projects would naturally command higher annual expenditures than those for smaller, routine design services. The award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' also introduces a variable that might affect cost structures compared to domestic contracts. A comprehensive benchmark would necessitate analyzing contracts with similar scope, duration, and service type, ideally within the same agency or military branch.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding architectural services to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' over an extended period?

Awarding architectural services to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' over an extended period presents several potential risks. Firstly, oversight and quality assurance can be more challenging due to geographical distance, differing regulatory environments, and potential language barriers. Ensuring compliance with U.S. standards and security protocols might require additional effort and resources. Secondly, currency fluctuations and differing tax structures could impact the overall cost-effectiveness, despite the firm fixed-price nature. Thirdly, reliance on foreign entities might raise concerns about intellectual property protection and data security, especially if sensitive military information is involved. Finally, there's a potential risk of reduced responsiveness or flexibility in addressing urgent needs compared to domestic contractors located closer to operational sites.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, what mechanisms are in place to ensure the contractor delivers value and meets performance expectations?

Even with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, robust performance management is crucial to ensure value delivery. The Department of the Army would typically rely on contract administration personnel to monitor progress, review deliverables, and ensure compliance with the contract's terms and conditions. Key mechanisms include regular progress reports, site inspections (if applicable), milestone reviews, and formal acceptance of completed work. The contract likely includes specific performance standards or metrics that the contractor must meet. Failure to meet these could result in penalties, withholding of payments, or even contract termination. The effectiveness of these mechanisms depends on the diligence of the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the clarity of the contract's performance requirements.

How does the long contract duration of over 14 years impact the assessment of contractor performance and the potential for innovation?

A contract duration exceeding 14 years significantly impacts performance assessment and innovation. For performance, it allows for a long-term evaluation of the contractor's reliability, consistency, and ability to adapt to evolving requirements. However, it also increases the risk of complacency or a decline in service quality over time if not actively managed. Regarding innovation, such a long duration can be a double-edged sword. It might provide the contractor with the stability and incentive to invest in new technologies or methodologies to improve service delivery. Conversely, it could also stifle innovation if the contract terms are rigid and do not allow for incorporating advancements, or if the contractor becomes comfortable with the status quo and sees little need to propose improvements.

What is the historical spending pattern for architectural services by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit within that context?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific contract and does not offer historical spending patterns for architectural services by the Department of the Army. To understand this contract's context, one would need to analyze broader historical spending data. This would involve examining the total annual expenditure on architectural services, the number and types of contracts awarded (e.g., full and open, sole source), the average contract values, and the primary awardees over several fiscal years. This contract, valued at approximately $35.17 million over more than 14 years, represents a significant, long-term commitment. Its place within the historical context would depend on whether Army spending on such services has been consistently high, fluctuating, or trending in a particular direction, and whether reliance on foreign awardees for such services is a common practice or an anomaly.

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: $36,135,181

Exercised Options: $36,135,181

Current Obligation: $35,167,435

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline