DoD spent $18.3M on Garrison HQ Building construction, awarded to foreign entities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,343,937 ($18.3M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-04-28

End Date: 2009-04-23

Contract Duration: 726 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: GARRISON HQ BUILDING

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: GARRISON HQ BUILDING Key points: 1. The contract value of $18.3 million for a headquarters building appears substantial, warranting scrutiny of its cost-effectiveness. 2. Awarded to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES," the competition dynamics are unclear and may indicate limited domestic contractor engagement. 3. The fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government, but risks lie in potential scope creep or quality issues. 4. Performance context is limited without details on project milestones, delays, or quality assessments. 5. This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically for institutional buildings, a common area for government spending. 6. The duration of 726 days (approximately 2 years) is typical for a construction project of this scale.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the $18.3 million cost for a headquarters building is challenging without specific details on size, location, and amenities. However, the award to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" raises questions about whether the most competitive pricing was achieved. Comparing this to similar construction projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would be necessary to assess value for money. The firm fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the delivered facility.

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 fact that the award went to "MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES" suggests that either foreign firms were significantly more competitive, or there were limitations in domestic contractor participation for this specific requirement. With 13 bidders, the level of competition appears robust on paper, but the nature of the awardee warrants further investigation into the bidding process and the specific qualifications that led to this outcome.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through broad market participation. However, the outcome here, with foreign awardees, necessitates a review to ensure that taxpayer funds were indeed used most efficiently and that domestic industry was not unduly disadvantaged.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel who will utilize the Garrison HQ Building. The service delivered is the construction of a critical infrastructure facility, likely for command and control or administrative functions. The geographic impact is localized to the base or installation where the headquarters is located. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, project managers, and potentially ancillary support staff during the project's lifecycle.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' makes it difficult to assess their track record and reliability.
Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during construction, despite the fixed-price contract.
Questions surrounding the long-term maintenance and support costs associated with a facility built by foreign entities.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract provides a degree of cost certainty for the government.
The award resulted from a full and open competition, suggesting an attempt to solicit a wide range of offers.
The project was awarded to one of 13 bidders, indicating a competitive bidding process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the federal contracting market. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of construction services, particularly for facilities supporting military operations globally. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar government buildings constructed domestically and internationally, considering factors like labor costs, material availability, and regulatory environments.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides, as the 'sb' field is false. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' further suggests that small businesses, particularly domestic ones, were unlikely to be primary awardees or significant subcontractors unless specified in subcontracting plans. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless specific subcontracting opportunities were mandated and fulfilled.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting agency (Department of the Army) and potentially the Department of Defense's Inspector General. Accountability measures would include contract milestones, quality inspections, and adherence to the firm fixed-price agreement. Transparency is dependent on the public availability of contract performance reports and inspection records, which are not detailed here.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Foreign Military Construction Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Buildings

Risk Flags

Lack of specific contractor identification
Ambiguity in awardee description ('MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES')
Limited performance details available
Potential for undisclosed risks associated with foreign contractors

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. GARRISON HQ BUILDING

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 $18.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-04-28. End: 2009-04-23.

What specific type of 'Garrison HQ Building' was constructed, and what were its key features and square footage?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature or size of the 'Garrison HQ Building.' 'Garrison' typically refers to a military installation, and 'HQ Building' implies a headquarters facility. Key features could range from administrative offices and command centers to barracks or support facilities. Without further details, it's impossible to ascertain the specific functionalities, architectural design, or total square footage. This information is crucial for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and for comparing the project against industry benchmarks for similar facilities.

Can the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' be identified, and what is their prior experience with DoD or similar construction projects?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is highly generic and does not provide specific identification of the contractor(s). This lack of specificity makes it impossible to research their track record, financial stability, or past performance on similar projects for the DoD or other government entities. A key concern is the inability to verify their qualifications and reliability, which is a standard part of the vetting process for federal contracts. Further investigation would be needed to uncover the actual entities involved and assess their suitability.

How did the pricing of this $18.3 million contract compare to other bids received during the full and open competition?

The data indicates that 13 bids were received for this contract. While the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' the specific pricing details of the other 12 bids are not provided. To assess value for money, it would be essential to know the range of bids and how the winning bid compared to the average or lowest bid. Understanding the pricing structure and justification for the selected bid is critical, especially given the award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' to ensure that the government obtained competitive pricing and that the selection was based on overall best value, not solely price.

What were the key performance metrics and milestones for this construction project, and were they met on time and within budget?

The provided data includes the start date (2007-04-28) and end date (2009-04-23), indicating a duration of approximately 726 days. However, it does not detail the specific performance metrics, quality standards, or intermediate milestones established for the construction of the Garrison HQ Building. Assessing whether the project was completed successfully requires access to project management documentation, inspection reports, and final acceptance records. Without this information, it's difficult to evaluate the contractor's performance, the quality of the delivered facility, or adherence to the firm fixed-price terms beyond the basic timeline.

What is the historical spending pattern for Garrison HQ Buildings or similar construction projects within the Department of the Army?

The data provided is for a single contract awarded in 2007. To understand historical spending patterns for Garrison HQ Buildings or similar construction projects within the Department of the Army, a broader dataset encompassing multiple contracts over several fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve analyzing trends in contract values, award types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus), competition levels, and the types of contractors awarded these projects. Such an analysis could reveal whether spending has increased or decreased, if competition has changed, and if there are patterns in the types of entities winning these contracts.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building 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: W917PM07R0034

Offers Received: 13

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: $18,343,937

Exercised Options: $18,343,937

Current Obligation: $18,343,937

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline