DoD's $13.8M construction contract for Border Police Company shows fair value with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,867,718 ($13.9M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-07-01

End Date: 2011-08-17

Contract Duration: 1,142 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BORDER POLICE COMPANY

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: BORDER POLICE COMPANY Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the scope of commercial and institutional building construction. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. The duration of the contract (1142 days) indicates a significant project requiring sustained effort. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type likely transferred risk to the contractor. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Army, part of the DoD. 6. The contract was awarded to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES', suggesting international sourcing for construction services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking construction contracts of this nature is challenging without specific project details. However, the total award amount of approximately $13.8 million over a three-year period suggests a moderate annual expenditure. The firm fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if the project was completed successfully within budget. Without comparable project data or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is limited, but the competitive nature of the award provides some assurance.

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. With three bidders participating, the competition level was moderate. This suggests that while there was some choice, the market might not have been saturated with potential offerors. The presence of multiple bidders generally contributes to price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition with three bidders likely resulted in a fair market price for the construction services, benefiting taxpayers by avoiding potential overpayment associated with less competitive solicitations.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the personnel and operations supported by the Border Police Company, which relies on adequate facilities. The services delivered include the construction or renovation of commercial and institutional buildings essential for border security operations. The geographic impact is tied to the specific location where the Border Police Company operates and requires facility improvements. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs during the contract performance period, potentially benefiting skilled trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the 'Border Police Company' makes it difficult to assess the precise operational impact of the construction.
The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' raises questions about the vetting process and potential risks associated with international contractors.
The contract duration of over three years could indicate potential for scope creep or unforeseen challenges in large-scale construction projects.

Positive Signals

The use of firm fixed-price contract type generally indicates a well-defined scope and successful risk transfer to the contractor.
Awarding under full and open competition suggests a robust procurement process and a desire for competitive pricing.
The existence of three bidders points to a degree of market interest and capability in providing the required construction services.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, encompassing a wide range of projects from infrastructure to facility maintenance. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a broad category that includes facilities for various government functions. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, new operational requirements, and infrastructure upkeep. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar government construction projects within specific regions or for similar types of facilities.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, as the 'sb' field is false. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' also suggests that small businesses, particularly domestic ones, were unlikely to be primary recipients of this prime contract. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may have existed, but this would depend on the prime contractor's strategy and the specific requirements of the construction project. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal for this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Border Security Infrastructure Projects
Commercial Building Construction Services
Foreign Military Sales Construction Support

Risk Flags

Potential risks associated with foreign awardees.
Lack of specific project details limits in-depth value analysis.
Moderate competition level may not guarantee the absolute lowest price.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. BORDER POLICE COMPANY

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 $13.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-07-01. End: 2011-08-17.

What specific type of construction was performed under this contract, and what was the condition of the facilities prior to the work?

The contract specifies 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' but lacks granular detail on the exact nature of the work. This could range from new construction to major renovations or upgrades of existing facilities. Without further documentation, it's impossible to determine the prior condition of the facilities. Typically, such contracts would be initiated due to obsolescence, capacity needs, or functional deficiencies in existing structures. Understanding the specific scope (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training facilities) would provide better context for the $13.8 million expenditure.

How does the $13.8 million award compare to the average cost of similar construction projects for border security or law enforcement agencies?

Comparing this $13.8 million contract to average costs requires access to a benchmark database of similar federal construction projects. Factors like project size (square footage), complexity, location, and specific requirements (e.g., security features, specialized equipment installation) heavily influence cost. Generally, large-scale construction projects for government entities can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. This particular contract, awarded over approximately three years, suggests a significant but not exceptionally large project within the broader context of federal construction spending. A more precise comparison would necessitate analyzing projects with similar scopes and durations.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a construction contract to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

Awarding contracts to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' can introduce several risks. These include challenges in ensuring compliance with U.S. labor laws and safety standards, potential difficulties in quality control and oversight due to geographic distance, currency exchange rate fluctuations impacting final costs (though less likely with firm fixed-price), and geopolitical risks that could disrupt project timelines or performance. Furthermore, vetting foreign entities for security clearances and financial stability can be more complex than for domestic contractors. Ensuring adherence to ethical business practices and preventing fraud are also critical considerations.

What was the historical spending pattern for Border Police Company construction or facilities maintenance prior to this contract?

Historical spending data prior to this $13.8 million contract for the 'Border Police Company' is not readily available within the provided data. To assess historical patterns, one would need to query federal procurement databases for previous contracts awarded to or for the benefit of this specific entity or its parent organization over several fiscal years. Analyzing past expenditures would reveal whether this contract represents a significant increase or decrease in spending, indicate the frequency of facility upgrades or new construction, and potentially highlight any recurring issues or needs related to their infrastructure.

Given the firm fixed-price nature, what mechanisms were in place to ensure the contractor met quality standards throughout the project?

Even with a firm fixed-price contract, the government typically employs several mechanisms to ensure quality. These include detailed contract specifications and performance standards, regular site inspections by government representatives (e.g., contracting officer's representatives, engineers), requirements for contractor submittals (e.g., material samples, shop drawings, progress reports), and potentially independent testing of materials and workmanship. Acceptance of final deliverables is contingent upon meeting all specified quality requirements. Penalties or withholding of final payment could be invoked if quality standards were not met.

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: W917PM08R0065

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: $13,867,718

Exercised Options: $13,867,718

Current Obligation: $13,867,718

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline