DoD's Army Awards $16.7M for Prime Electric Generating Plant Construction Under Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,697,016 ($16.7M)
Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-03-19
End Date: 2010-05-01
Contract Duration: 408 days
Daily Burn Rate: $40.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 26
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: PRIME ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $16.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: PRIME ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Key points: 1. The contract awarded to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for $16.7M represents a significant investment in industrial building construction. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust process for selecting the contractor. 3. The firm fixed price contract type aims to control costs for the Department of Defense. 4. The project duration of 408 days indicates a substantial construction undertaking.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $16.7M for industrial building construction needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess its fairness. Without specific details on the scope and complexity, a definitive pricing assessment is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The use of full and open competition is a positive indicator for price discovery, as it allows multiple bidders to vie for the contract. This process generally leads to more competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: The firm fixed price contract aims to protect taxpayers by establishing a ceiling on costs. The competitive bidding process should further ensure that the final price is reasonable.
Public Impact
Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best value for public funds. The construction of an electric generating plant suggests a critical infrastructure project for military operations. The award to foreign entities raises questions about domestic industrial capacity and potential geopolitical considerations.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Award to foreign entities
- Lack of specific details on project scope for value assessment
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition utilized
- Firm fixed price contract type
Sector Analysis
Industrial building construction, particularly for critical infrastructure like power generation, can be a complex and costly sector. Benchmarks for similar projects would be necessary for a precise value assessment.
Small Business Impact
The data does not indicate any specific provisions or awards made to small businesses for this contract. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
The use of full and open competition suggests a standard procurement process. However, oversight on the execution and final delivery of the generating plant is crucial to ensure accountability.
Related Government Programs
- Industrial Building Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Award to foreign entities
- Lack of detailed project scope for value assessment
- Potential for supply chain vulnerabilities
- Limited transparency on subcontractor involvement
Tags
industrial-building-construction, department-of-defense, definitive-contract, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $16.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. PRIME ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT
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 $16.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-03-19. End: 2010-05-01.
What specific capabilities or technologies does this electric generating plant provide to the Department of the Army, and how do these align with current operational needs?
The provided data lacks specifics on the plant's capabilities. A detailed analysis would require reviewing the contract's statement of work to understand the intended power output, fuel source, and any specialized technologies. This information is crucial for assessing its strategic value and ensuring it meets evolving military requirements in areas like energy security and operational readiness.
What are the potential risks associated with awarding a significant construction contract for critical infrastructure to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees'?
Awarding to foreign entities can introduce risks related to supply chain security, geopolitical instability, differing labor standards, and potential difficulties in enforcing contract terms or warranties. It also raises questions about the availability of domestic expertise and the long-term economic benefits for U.S. industry. Thorough vetting and robust oversight are essential to mitigate these potential risks.
How effectively did the 'full and open competition' process ensure the best value for taxpayers, considering the $16.7 million price tag?
While 'full and open competition' is designed to foster competitive pricing, its effectiveness in ensuring best value depends on the number and quality of bids received, the clarity of the solicitation, and the evaluation criteria. Without knowing the bid range or the number of competitors, it's difficult to definitively assess the value achieved. A post-award analysis comparing the winning bid to independent cost estimates would provide further insight.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W917PM09R0031
Offers Received: 26
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $16,697,016
Exercised Options: $16,697,016
Current Obligation: $16,697,016
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-03-19
Current End Date: 2010-05-01
Potential End Date: 2010-05-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-04-25
More Contracts from Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees
- Additional Services Mca-Funded — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W27p4a05c0002} Bottled Water — $480.1M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gy007c0053} Rule of LAW — $372.4M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gdw07d4021} Reconstruction Security Support Services (rsss) — $188.8M (Department of Defense)
- {piin: W91gxy06c0094} AL Qudas GAS Turbine Expansion — $169.5M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)