DoD's $34M contract for Iraqi Army HQ complex awarded to miscellaneous foreign entities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,064,881 ($34.1M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-10-09

End Date: 2011-05-15

Contract Duration: 583 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 4TH IRAQI ARMY DIV HQ COMPLEX

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: 4TH IRAQI ARMY DIV HQ COMPLEX Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a group of foreign entities, raising questions about oversight and value. 2. The firm fixed-price contract was awarded under full and open competition. 3. The contract duration of 583 days suggests a significant construction project. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 indicates heavy and civil engineering construction. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the DoD. 6. The contract's value of $34 million warrants scrutiny regarding cost-effectiveness and risk management.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation, which lacks specific contractor details. The firm fixed-price structure suggests cost certainty, but the absence of detailed performance metrics or comparisons to similar international construction projects makes a definitive value assessment difficult. The total contract value of $34 million for an army headquarters complex in Iraq requires careful consideration of geopolitical factors and local market conditions, which are not fully detailed.

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 award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests a complex bidding process potentially involving international firms. The number of bidders (3) is relatively low for a full and open competition of this magnitude, which could imply limited market interest or specialized requirements.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers by fostering price discovery, the specific nature of the awardees here makes it difficult to ascertain if the lowest price was achieved. The limited number of bidders may have reduced the competitive pressure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Iraqi Army, which receives a new headquarters complex. The contract delivers construction services for a significant military infrastructure project. The geographic impact is concentrated in Iraq, supporting the U.S. military's foreign policy objectives. Workforce implications would likely involve local Iraqi labor and potentially specialized foreign construction expertise.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific contractor identification for 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' hinders performance and responsibility assessment.
Potential for cost overruns or quality issues given the international and potentially less scrutinized nature of the awardees.
Geopolitical risks associated with operating in Iraq could impact project timelines and costs.
Limited transparency in the bidding process due to the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' classification.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, theoretically allowing for competitive pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty if managed effectively.
Project supports a key U.S. foreign policy objective by strengthening allied military infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the heavy and civil engineering construction sector, specifically related to defense infrastructure. The global defense construction market is substantial, with significant spending by nations on military facilities. Contracts of this nature often involve complex logistics, security considerations, and adherence to international standards. Benchmarking would typically involve comparing costs to similar military construction projects in comparable regions, adjusted for local conditions and security premiums.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Given the award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees,' it is unlikely that U.S. small businesses were primary contractors. Subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses are not explicitly detailed but would depend on the prime awardees' procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for contracts awarded to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' can be less robust than for domestic contractors. Accountability measures would rely heavily on the Department of the Army's contracting officers and potentially on-site representatives. Transparency is limited by the lack of specific contractor identification. Inspector General jurisdiction might be applicable, but enforcement and recourse could be more complex.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Construction Contracts
Department of Defense Construction Projects
Iraq Reconstruction Projects
Army Corps of Engineers Construction

Risk Flags

Lack of Specific Contractor Identification
Potential for Reduced Oversight
Geopolitical Risk in Iraq
Limited Competition Data (Number of Bidders)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. 4TH IRAQI ARMY DIV HQ COMPLEX

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 $34.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-10-09. End: 2011-05-15.

What specific entities were awarded this contract, and what is their track record in similar construction projects?

The provided data lists the awardees as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' which is a generic classification and does not identify specific companies. Consequently, assessing their individual track records, past performance on similar projects, or any history of issues with quality, timeliness, or budget adherence is not possible with the given information. This lack of specific contractor identification is a significant limitation in evaluating the contract's overall risk and potential for success. Further investigation would be required to identify the actual entities involved and research their relevant experience.

How does the $34 million cost compare to similar military construction projects in Iraq or comparable regions?

Directly comparing the $34 million cost for this Iraqi Army HQ complex to similar projects is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work, size, and amenities of the facility, as well as the prevailing market conditions at the time of award (2009). Construction costs in post-conflict zones like Iraq can be significantly higher due to security risks, logistical complexities, and demand for specialized services. However, for a major military headquarters, $34 million could be considered within a reasonable range, provided the project's scale and complexity align with this figure. Benchmarking against other DoD construction projects in similar environments would be necessary for a more precise assessment.

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

Awarding a contract of this magnitude to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' presents several key risks. Firstly, there is a significant lack of transparency regarding the specific contractors involved, making it difficult to vet their capabilities, financial stability, and past performance. This can increase the risk of contractor default, substandard work, or project delays. Secondly, oversight and enforcement can be more challenging with foreign entities, potentially leading to difficulties in ensuring compliance with contract terms, quality standards, and ethical practices. Thirdly, geopolitical and security risks inherent in operating in Iraq are amplified when dealing with less familiar foreign entities, potentially impacting project continuity and cost. Finally, ensuring fair pricing and preventing fraud or corruption becomes more complex without clear identification and established relationships.

What evidence exists regarding the effectiveness or success of this construction project in meeting the needs of the 4th Iraqi Army Division?

The provided data focuses on the contract award details (value, dates, competition type) and does not include any information on the project's execution, completion status, or its effectiveness in meeting the operational needs of the 4th Iraqi Army Division. Assessing success would require post-award performance reports, user feedback from the Iraqi Army, and potentially site inspections or operational readiness assessments. Without such data, it is impossible to determine if the constructed headquarters complex adequately supports the division's functions, enhances its capabilities, or has proven to be a valuable asset. The contract's end date was May 15, 2011, suggesting it should be completed, but its impact remains unevaluated.

How has historical spending by the Department of the Army on similar international construction projects compared to this contract's value?

Historical spending by the Department of the Army on international construction projects, particularly in support of allied forces or reconstruction efforts, has varied widely based on geographic location, geopolitical context, and project scope. While specific comparative data for projects in Iraq during the 2009-2011 period is not provided here, the Army has undertaken numerous large-scale infrastructure projects globally. The $34 million value of this contract for an army headquarters complex is substantial but not unprecedented for major military construction endeavors. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to analyze spending trends for similar facilities (e.g., command centers, barracks, training grounds) in comparable operational environments, considering factors like security premiums and logistical costs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W917BE09R0038

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,064,881

Exercised Options: $34,064,881

Current Obligation: $34,064,881

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline