DoD's $46.5M A/E Services contract awarded to miscellaneous foreign entities over 11 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $46,480,926 ($46.5M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-22

End Date: 2020-12-30

Contract Duration: 3,995 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: A/E SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $46.5 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: A/E SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded to foreign entities raises questions about domestic economic benefit. 2. Long contract duration (nearly 11 years) may indicate a need for sustained services. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 4. The 'All Other Specialty Trade Contractors' NAICS code is broad, potentially masking specific service types. 5. Lack of small business participation noted, suggesting larger firms or foreign entities were primary bidders. 6. The significant dollar value over a long period warrants scrutiny of ongoing performance and value.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of approximately $46.5 million over nearly 11 years averages to about $4.2 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar Architecture and Engineering (A/E) services contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the duration and value suggest a substantial, long-term requirement. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the value-for-money assessment hinges on the quality and necessity of the services rendered, which are not detailed here. Awarding to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' also introduces complexities in assessing domestic economic impact and potential cost savings compared to U.S.-based firms.

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. However, the data specifies 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' as the recipient, which is unusual for a full and open competition unless specific international requirements or capabilities were sought. The number of bidders is not provided, making it difficult to assess the intensity of the competition. The fact that foreign entities were ultimately awarded the contract could suggest a lack of competitive domestic bids for the specific requirements or a strategic decision to engage foreign expertise.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through diverse bids. However, when awards go to foreign entities, the direct economic benefit to U.S. taxpayers through domestic job creation and business growth is diminished.

Public Impact

Foreign entities likely benefited economically from this contract, potentially through employment and revenue generation in their home countries. The services provided under this contract supported Department of Defense operations, though the specific nature of A/E services is broad. Geographic impact is unclear, but likely related to DoD installations or operations where the foreign awardees provided their expertise. Workforce implications are primarily for the foreign awardees' employees, with limited direct impact on the U.S. civilian workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to foreign entities may limit direct economic benefits to the U.S. economy.
Broad NAICS code 'All Other Specialty Trade Contractors' lacks specificity, making performance and value assessment difficult.
Long contract duration could indicate potential for cost overruns if not managed tightly, despite fixed-price.
Lack of small business participation suggests potential barriers for smaller domestic firms in competing for such contracts.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition theoretically ensures the best possible offer was selected.
The contract fulfilled a sustained need for A/E services for the Department of Defense over an extended period.

Sector Analysis

Architecture and Engineering (A/E) services represent a significant sector within the broader professional services industry, supporting infrastructure development, design, and project management across various domains. The federal government is a major consumer of these services, particularly for defense, transportation, and public works projects. The market includes a wide range of firms, from large multinational corporations to specialized small businesses. This contract, valued at approximately $46.5 million over nearly a decade, falls into the mid-to-large contract size category within the federal A/E spending landscape. Its award to foreign entities is a notable aspect, suggesting either specialized capabilities or specific international operational needs driving the procurement.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by 'sb: false'. The award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' further suggests that small businesses, particularly U.S.-based ones, were likely not primary participants or beneficiaries of this contract. This could imply that the scope of work required capabilities or scale typically found in larger domestic or international firms, or that the procurement strategy did not prioritize small business engagement. Consequently, there are limited direct subcontracting implications for the U.S. small business ecosystem stemming from this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. As a definitive contract awarded under full and open competition, standard oversight mechanisms related to performance monitoring, invoicing, and compliance would apply. Transparency is generally facilitated by contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award details. However, the specifics of ongoing performance reviews, quality assurance, and any Inspector General involvement are not detailed in the provided data. The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' aspect might introduce additional layers of international legal and compliance oversight.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense A/E Services Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support Services
Specialty Trade Contractor Services
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Award to foreign entities
Broad NAICS code
Long contract duration
Lack of small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $46.5 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. A/E 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 $46.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-22. End: 2020-12-30.

What specific A/E services were procured under this contract, and how did they align with DoD's mission requirements?

The provided data classifies the contract under NAICS code 238990, 'All Other Specialty Trade Contractors,' and describes the service as 'A/E SERVICES.' This broad classification makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact nature of the Architecture and Engineering services. Typically, A/E services encompass architectural design, engineering analysis, planning, surveying, and construction management. For the Department of Defense, these services could range from designing military facilities and infrastructure to providing technical support for overseas operations or specialized engineering solutions. Without more granular data on the contract's statement of work, it's challenging to detail the specific alignment with DoD's mission requirements beyond a general need for design and technical expertise.

How does the average annual value of this contract compare to typical federal A/E service contracts of similar scope and duration?

This contract's total value is approximately $46.5 million over nearly 11 years, averaging around $4.2 million annually. Federal A/E contracts vary widely in cost based on project complexity, location, and service type. For large-scale infrastructure or facility design projects, an annual spend of $4.2 million might be considered moderate. However, without knowing the specific services rendered (e.g., basic design vs. complex engineering, domestic vs. overseas support), a direct comparison is difficult. Contracts for major military construction or specialized R&D support could easily exceed this annual average. Conversely, smaller-scale planning or consulting contracts would be significantly less. The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' aspect also complicates direct benchmarking against primarily U.S.-based service providers.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a long-term, high-value contract to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees'?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude ($46.5M over ~11 years) to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' presents several potential risks. Firstly, there are geopolitical risks; the stability and reliability of the foreign entities and their home countries could impact service continuity. Secondly, oversight and enforcement of contract terms, quality standards, and intellectual property rights can be more complex across international borders. Thirdly, there's a potential lack of direct economic benefit to the U.S. economy, such as job creation or technology transfer, which might be a consideration for domestic procurements. Finally, communication barriers, differing business practices, and navigating foreign legal frameworks could introduce inefficiencies or disputes. Ensuring compliance with U.S. regulations and security protocols would also be a critical oversight challenge.

Given the 'full and open competition' designation, why were 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' the ultimate recipients?

The designation 'full and open competition' means the solicitation was broadly advertised, allowing any eligible entity to bid. The award to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' suggests that, despite the open competition, foreign firms possessed the specific capabilities, expertise, or capacity required for this particular A/E services contract, potentially at a competitive price point. It's possible that U.S. firms either did not bid, did not meet the technical requirements, or were not as cost-competitive for this specific scope of work. Alternatively, the DoD may have had a strategic requirement for international A/E support, perhaps related to overseas operations or specific foreign technical standards, making foreign awardees a logical choice if they offered the best value.

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

The Department of the Army, like other branches of the DoD, consistently spends significant amounts on Architecture and Engineering (A/E) services to support its vast infrastructure, facilities, and operational needs globally. Historical spending data would likely show a substantial and recurring budget allocation for these services, covering everything from base construction and renovation to specialized engineering studies and environmental compliance. This particular contract, valued at $46.5 million over nearly 11 years, represents a notable, long-term investment within that broader spending context. Its duration and fixed-price nature suggest a stable, ongoing requirement that the Army sought to fulfill through a single, comprehensive agreement, likely contributing to a predictable cost structure for a specific set of A/E needs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors

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: $46,589,526

Exercised Options: $46,589,526

Current Obligation: $46,480,926

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline