DoD spent $23M on fossil fuel power generation, with 23 bids received in a full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,073,753 ($23.1M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2012-08-16

Contract Duration: 1,051 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 23

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Energy

Official Description: URI 112739 TAJI ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: URI 112739 TAJI ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION Key points: 1. The contract aimed to secure reliable energy infrastructure, a critical component for military operations. 2. A high number of bids suggests a competitive market for this type of service. 3. The firm fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Performance spanned over three years, indicating a significant operational requirement. 5. The award was made by the Defense Contract Administration, suggesting a focus on defense-related needs. 6. The contract's value is moderate within the context of large-scale energy infrastructure projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without specific details on the power generated or the location's energy market. However, $23 million over approximately three years for a firm fixed-price contract for fossil fuel power generation suggests a potentially reasonable cost for ensuring operational readiness. Comparing it to similar contracts for military base power provision would offer a clearer picture of value for money. The absence of detailed performance metrics makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 23 bids received. This indicates a robust bidding process and suggests that the government sought the best possible offer from a wide range of potential providers. The high number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a broader selection of technical solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with numerous bidders is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces, ensuring that the government is not overpaying for essential services like power generation.

Public Impact

Military installations requiring a stable and independent source of fossil fuel-based electricity. Ensured operational continuity for defense missions by providing a reliable power supply. Geographic impact is localized to the specific military facility or region served by the power generation. Potential workforce implications for the contractor's operational and maintenance staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Reliance on fossil fuels contributes to environmental concerns and potential long-term energy price volatility.
The firm fixed-price nature could lead to contractor issues if unforeseen operational challenges arise.
Limited information on the specific technology used for power generation.
The contract duration might not align with long-term energy strategy goals.
Potential for cost overruns if maintenance or fuel costs escalate beyond projections.

Positive Signals

Secured a critical utility for defense operations, enhancing readiness.
The competitive bidding process likely resulted in a cost-effective solution at the time of award.
Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
The contract fulfilled a defined need for energy infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the energy sector, specifically focusing on fossil fuel electric power generation. This segment of the energy market is characterized by significant capital investment, regulatory oversight, and fluctuating commodity prices. The market size for such services supporting federal installations can be substantial, often involving long-term agreements to ensure energy security and operational resilience for critical government functions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for power generation at military bases or other federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through set-asides is unlikely. However, larger prime contractors may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or components, though this is not explicitly detailed in the award information. The overall ecosystem impact would depend on the subcontracting practices of the prime awardee.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would likely fall under the purview of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or a similar Department of Defense contracting entity, given the 'DCA' award code. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is 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.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Operations Support
Defense Energy Infrastructure
Fossil Fuel Power Plants
Federal Energy Procurement
Utility Services for Government Facilities

Risk Flags

Contractor Identification Ambiguity
Lack of Specific Performance Metrics
Potential Geopolitical Risks (Foreign Awardee)
Environmental Concerns (Fossil Fuels)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. URI 112739 TAJI ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION

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 $23.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2012-08-16.

What was the specific type of fossil fuel used for power generation under this contract, and what were the associated fuel cost considerations?

The provided data does not specify the exact type of fossil fuel (e.g., natural gas, diesel, coal) used for power generation. Fossil fuel costs are a significant variable in such contracts. For a firm fixed-price contract, the contractor assumes the risk of fuel price fluctuations. If the contract was for natural gas, prices can be volatile based on market supply and demand, geopolitical events, and weather patterns. If it involved diesel, prices would track crude oil markets. The contractor would have factored in projected fuel costs, including transportation and storage, into their bid. Without more detailed contract documents, it's impossible to quantify the exact fuel cost component or how price volatility was managed.

How does the per-unit cost of electricity generated under this contract compare to commercial rates in the likely geographic area of the military installation?

Determining the per-unit cost of electricity requires knowing the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) generated over the contract period and dividing the total contract value ($23,073,753) by that amount. The contract duration was approximately 1051 days (about 2.88 years). Without knowing the average power output or total energy delivered, a direct per-unit cost comparison is impossible. Furthermore, commercial electricity rates vary significantly by region, utility provider, and consumption volume. Military installations often have unique power requirements and may be located in areas with different energy market dynamics than typical commercial customers. A comparison would necessitate obtaining the total MWh produced and comparing it against average commercial rates for similar load profiles in the relevant region, which is not available from the summary data.

What was the track record of the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' contractor regarding performance on similar energy generation contracts?

The data identifies 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' as the contractor, which is a broad category and likely represents a collection of entities rather than a single named company. This designation makes it difficult to assess a specific contractor's track record. Typically, federal contract databases would list a specific company name, allowing for a review of past performance, past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS), and any history of contract disputes or defaults. Without a specific entity name, it is impossible to research their history with energy generation contracts, their financial stability, or their demonstrated ability to meet performance requirements for similar projects. This lack of specific contractor identification is a limitation in assessing performance risk.

What were the primary performance metrics or service level agreements (SLAs) stipulated in the contract, and how was compliance measured?

The provided summary data does not include specific performance metrics or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. For a power generation contract, typical metrics might include power availability (uptime percentage), power quality (voltage and frequency stability), response time to outages, fuel efficiency, and adherence to environmental regulations. Compliance would usually be measured through regular reporting by the contractor, site inspections, energy output monitoring, and potentially third-party audits. The firm fixed-price nature suggests that meeting the required output and availability would be paramount. The absence of this detail hinders an assessment of the contractor's actual performance and the overall effectiveness of the service delivered.

How does the total spending of $23 million on this specific power generation contract compare to the Department of Defense's overall annual spending on energy infrastructure?

The $23 million spent on this particular fossil fuel power generation contract represents a relatively small fraction of the Department of Defense's (DoD) total annual energy budget, which often runs into the billions of dollars. The DoD is one of the largest energy consumers globally, with extensive needs for electricity, heating fuels, and operational fuels across numerous bases and facilities worldwide. This contract likely supported a specific installation or a limited operational requirement for a defined period (approx. 3 years). Broader DoD energy spending encompasses a wide range of initiatives, including grid modernization, renewable energy adoption, fuel procurement for vehicles and aircraft, and large-scale infrastructure projects. Therefore, while significant for this specific project, it's a component within a much larger energy expenditure portfolio.

Were there any specific risks identified during the solicitation or award process related to the use of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' suggests that the contractor(s) were not U.S.-based entities. This could introduce several risks, including challenges in legal recourse, differing regulatory compliance standards, potential supply chain vulnerabilities, and geopolitical considerations. Depending on the specific foreign entities involved, there could be concerns related to national security, intellectual property protection, or adherence to U.S. labor and environmental standards. The contracting agency (Department of the Army, under DoD) would typically conduct due diligence to assess these risks. However, the broad categorization implies that specific risk assessments for individual foreign entities might not be readily available in summary data, potentially leaving gaps in understanding the full risk profile.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W917BG09R0015

Offers Received: 23

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: $23,073,753

Exercised Options: $23,073,753

Current Obligation: $23,073,753

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline