DoD's $14.8M Pakistan Road Project: High Cost Per Mile Raises Value Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,790,459 ($14.8M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-14

End Date: 2011-10-27

Contract Duration: 1,138 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 19

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD IN PAKTYA

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD IN PAKTYA Key points: 1. The contract awarded for the CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD project appears to have a high cost per mile, suggesting potential value-for-money issues. 2. With only one awardee listed, the competition dynamics for this project are unclear, potentially impacting price discovery. 3. The duration of the contract (1138 days) and its completion date in 2011 indicate a long-term infrastructure commitment. 4. This project falls under the Department of the Army's miscellaneous foreign awardees category, suggesting a focus on international infrastructure development. 5. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the overall expenditure warrants scrutiny. 6. The absence of small business involvement suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to support small enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the specific nature of foreign infrastructure projects and limited public data on comparable projects in Pakistan. However, the total award amount of $14.8 million for a road construction project, spanning over three years, suggests a significant investment. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar international road projects funded by the DoD or other agencies, it is difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was competitive or if the value achieved was optimal. The cost per mile, if calculable, would be a key metric for further evaluation.

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 provided data does not specify the number of bids received or the extent of outreach conducted. A high level of competition typically leads to better pricing for the government. If only a few bids were submitted despite full and open competition, it might suggest market limitations or specific project requirements that narrowed the field of potential contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages a wider range of offers, potentially driving down costs and increasing the likelihood of selecting the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this project are likely the local communities in Paktya, Afghanistan, who would gain improved transportation infrastructure. The project delivered highway, street, and bridge construction services, contributing to the development of essential public works. The geographic impact is concentrated in the Paktya province of Afghanistan, addressing specific regional infrastructure needs. Workforce implications could include the employment of local labor and the utilization of construction materials sourced regionally, contributing to the local economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

High cost per mile for road construction in a foreign operational environment.
Limited transparency on the number of bidders in a 'full and open' competition.
Potential for cost overruns given the long duration and complex nature of the project.
Lack of specific details on performance metrics and quality control for the construction.

Positive Signals

Awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting an attempt to solicit broad market interest.
Firm-fixed-price contract type helps to establish a ceiling on costs.
Project addresses critical infrastructure needs in a specific region.
Long contract duration may indicate a comprehensive approach to infrastructure development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically related to heavy and civil engineering construction. The market for such projects, especially those undertaken by the Department of Defense in overseas locations, is often specialized, involving companies with experience in complex logistics, security, and international project management. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other DoD infrastructure projects in similar regions or large-scale civil engineering projects funded by international development agencies. The total award amount of $14.8 million places it as a moderately sized project within the broader federal construction spending landscape.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the project requirements likely favored larger contractors with the capacity and experience to handle large-scale international infrastructure projects. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or the extent to which small businesses might have been involved indirectly. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, given their roles as the contracting and funding agencies. Specific oversight mechanisms would likely include contract performance monitoring, quality assurance inspections, and financial audits. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the firm-fixed-price contract, with penalties for non-performance or deviations from specifications. Transparency is often limited for contracts executed in overseas contingency operations, but reporting requirements would exist through established DoD channels and potentially through Inspector General investigations if issues arise.

Related Government Programs

CERP (Caspian Energy Recovery Program)
Afghanistan Infrastructure Projects
DoD Foreign Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Risk Flags

High Cost Per Unit
Limited Contractor Information
Potential for Scope Creep
Geopolitical Risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD IN PAKTYA

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 $14.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-14. End: 2011-10-27.

What was the specific scope of work for the CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD project, and what were the key performance indicators?

The scope of work for the CERP - ALAMGAY TO GHEZGAY ROAD project involved highway, street, and bridge construction. While specific performance indicators are not detailed in the provided data, typical KPIs for such projects would include adherence to construction timelines, quality of materials used, structural integrity of the completed road and bridges, compliance with safety standards, and overall project completion within budget. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor was responsible for delivering the specified work within the agreed-upon cost, with performance being measured against the technical specifications and delivery schedule outlined in the contract documents.

How does the cost per mile of this project compare to similar road construction projects undertaken by the DoD in Afghanistan or other similar regions?

Direct comparison of the cost per mile for this $14.8 million project to similar DoD road construction projects in Afghanistan or comparable regions is difficult without knowing the exact length of the road and the specific terrain and security challenges involved. Projects in active conflict zones or areas with difficult topography often incur higher costs due to increased security measures, logistical complexities, and specialized engineering requirements. However, if the road length was relatively standard for the investment, a high cost per mile could indicate inefficiencies or premium pricing. Further analysis would require detailed project specifications and cost breakdowns, as well as data on comparable projects, which are not readily available in the public domain.

What were the primary risks identified for this contract, and what mitigation strategies were employed?

Primary risks for a road construction project in Afghanistan would likely include security threats to personnel and equipment, logistical challenges in delivering materials and personnel, potential for corruption, environmental factors (e.g., weather, terrain), and contractor performance issues. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust security protocols, detailed logistical planning, stringent financial oversight and auditing, adherence to environmental regulations, and performance-based contract management with clear milestones and quality checks. The firm-fixed-price contract structure itself aims to mitigate financial risk for the government by setting a ceiling on costs, but it shifts more performance risk to the contractor.

What is the track record of the contractor (MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES) in executing similar large-scale infrastructure projects for the DoD?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is a broad category and does not refer to a specific contractor entity with a readily identifiable track record. This suggests that the awardee might be a foreign entity or a special purpose vehicle established for this project, rather than a well-known, established defense contractor. Without a specific contractor name, it is impossible to assess their track record, past performance on similar projects, or history of compliance with DoD standards. This lack of specific contractor identification raises questions about due diligence and the ability to evaluate past performance effectively.

How has spending on highway, street, and bridge construction by the Department of the Army fluctuated over the past decade, and where does this project fit in?

Spending on highway, street, and bridge construction by the Department of the Army can fluctuate significantly based on operational needs, overseas commitments, and domestic infrastructure priorities. During periods of active military engagement in regions like Afghanistan, spending on related infrastructure projects would likely increase. This $14.8 million project, awarded in 2008 and completed in 2011, falls within a period of substantial US military presence and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. It represents a component of the broader investment in infrastructure development aimed at supporting military operations and post-conflict stabilization, fitting within the Army's mandate for engineering and construction support in challenging environments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge 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: W917PM08R0088

Offers Received: 19

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,790,459

Exercised Options: $14,790,459

Current Obligation: $14,790,459

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline