Department of the Army awarded $20.08M for perimeter fence construction at Camp Adder

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,082,244 ($20.1M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-17

End Date: 2009-11-30

Contract Duration: 805 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASE PERIMETER FENCE CAMP ADDER

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASE PERIMETER FENCE CAMP ADDER Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. 3. The duration of 805 days for the project suggests a significant construction undertaking. 4. The awardee is listed as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', which warrants further investigation into contractor identity and past performance. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value for this specific contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparable project data. The total award amount of $20.08 million for a perimeter fence, while substantial, needs to be assessed against the scale and complexity of the Camp Adder installation. The firm-fixed-price nature is generally favorable for the government, but the lack of specific cost details makes a precise value-for-money assessment difficult. Further analysis of the contractor's bid and the government's cost estimates would be beneficial.

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. The record shows 6 bids were received, suggesting a reasonable level of competition for this construction project. A competitive process generally helps ensure that the government receives fair pricing and that the most capable contractor is selected.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel stationed at Camp Adder, through enhanced base security. The service delivered is the construction of a base perimeter fence, a critical security infrastructure component. The geographic impact is localized to Camp Adder, likely in a theater of operations. Workforce implications would include construction jobs for the duration of the project, potentially involving both local and foreign labor depending on the contractor's sourcing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The identity of 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is vague and requires clarification to assess contractor responsibility and past performance.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown makes it difficult to assess the reasonableness of the price.
The long project duration (805 days) could introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations or changing security requirements.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project addresses a clear security need for the base perimeter.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. The market for military base construction and security infrastructure is significant, often involving specialized contractors. While specific benchmarks for perimeter fence construction costs are not readily available, large-scale construction projects for defense installations typically involve substantial investment. This contract represents a portion of the broader defense spending allocated to infrastructure and force protection.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor engages small businesses for specific components or services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Base Perimeter Security Systems
Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Foreign Military Sales Support (potential, given awardee)

Risk Flags

Vague Contractor Identification
Potential Security Risks in Operating Environment
Long Project Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.1 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASE PERIMETER FENCE CAMP ADDER

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 $20.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-17. End: 2009-11-30.

What is the specific identity and track record of the contractor 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is highly unusual and lacks specificity. It prevents a direct assessment of the contractor's past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities. Further investigation would be required to identify the actual entity or entities awarded this contract. This could involve cross-referencing with other contract databases, intelligence reports, or direct inquiries to the contracting agency. Without this information, assessing the risk associated with the contractor is significantly hampered, and it raises questions about the transparency and robustness of the vetting process for foreign awardees on sensitive projects.

How does the cost per linear foot of this fence compare to industry benchmarks for similar security installations?

To compare the cost per linear foot, we would need the total length of the fence constructed. Assuming the $20.08 million award covers the entire project, and if the fence length were, for example, 10,000 feet, the cost would be approximately $2,008 per linear foot. This figure needs to be benchmarked against industry standards for high-security perimeter fencing, which can vary widely based on terrain, materials (e.g., anti-climb, vehicle-resistant), integrated technology (e.g., sensors, cameras), and labor costs in the specific region. Without the fence length, a direct comparison is impossible. However, costs for robust perimeter security systems can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars per linear foot, depending on the complexity and threat level.

What were the key performance metrics and outcomes achieved during the 805-day contract period?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or outcomes for this contract. Typically, contract performance is evaluated against requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW), including adherence to schedule, quality standards, and technical specifications. For a perimeter fence construction, key metrics might include completion of all fence sections, successful integration of any security technology, and compliance with environmental and safety regulations. Post-completion inspections and acceptance reports would document whether the project met its objectives. Without access to performance reports or contract close-out documentation, assessing the success of the project beyond its award and completion dates is not possible.

What is the historical spending trend for perimeter security at Camp Adder or similar forward operating bases?

Historical spending data for perimeter security at Camp Adder or comparable bases is not provided in this dataset. Analyzing such trends would require access to multi-year contract databases and budget allocations for the specific installation or type of base. Understanding historical spending would help contextualize the $20.08 million award, indicating whether it represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in base security infrastructure. It would also help identify patterns in contract types, awardees, and potential cost efficiencies or escalations over time for similar security projects.

Were there any significant risks identified during the bidding process or contract execution, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not detail specific risks identified during the bidding or execution phases. However, potential risks for a project of this nature and duration include security threats in the operating environment, logistical challenges for material delivery, contractor performance issues, and unforeseen site conditions. The firm-fixed-price contract structure places the primary financial risk on the contractor. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust contract oversight, clear communication channels, contingency planning, and potentially performance bonds. The vagueness of the awardee's identity could itself be considered a risk indicator that may have been addressed through pre-award vetting processes, the details of which are not public.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W917BK07R0042

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,082,244

Exercised Options: $20,082,244

Current Obligation: $20,082,244

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline