DoD's $30M aviation fuel contract awarded to undisclosed foreign entities raises transparency concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,035,574 ($30.0M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-08-01

End Date: 2018-12-30

Contract Duration: 516 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION FUEL.

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.0 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION FUEL. Key points: 1. Significant expenditure on aviation fuel highlights critical logistical support for military operations. 2. The contract's award to foreign entities, with undisclosed specifics, limits public understanding of value. 3. Lack of competition suggests potential for suboptimal pricing and reduced taxpayer value. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the absence of competition hinders benchmarking. 5. This contract falls under 'Other Support Activities for Air Transportation,' a vital but often opaque sector. 6. The duration of the contract (516 days) indicates a substantial, ongoing need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $30 million aviation fuel contract is challenging due to the undisclosed nature of the foreign awardees. Without knowing the specific entities or the competitive landscape, it's difficult to assess if the pricing was optimal or if the government received fair market value. Compared to domestic fuel contracts, the lack of transparency here is a significant detractor from a value-for-money perspective. The absence of detailed performance metrics or comparisons makes a definitive assessment of excellence impossible.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that only one source was considered capable of fulfilling the requirement, or that the circumstances of the award did not permit a competitive process. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative suppliers, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced innovation. It also raises questions about the thoroughness of market research conducted prior to the award.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards, especially for significant amounts like $30 million, mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding. This can result in a less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its aviation units, ensuring operational readiness. Services delivered include the provision of essential aviation fuel, critical for flight operations. The geographic impact is likely tied to military bases or operational theaters where these aircraft are deployed. Workforce implications are indirect, supporting the military personnel who operate and maintain aircraft.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding foreign awardees hinders accountability.
Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially increasing costs.
Undisclosed awardee details make performance monitoring and risk assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract addresses a critical operational need for aviation fuel.

Sector Analysis

The aviation fuel market is a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense sector. This contract represents spending within the support services sub-sector, which is essential for maintaining the operational capabilities of military aviation fleets. Global demand for aviation fuel is substantial, driven by both commercial and military aviation. Benchmarking this specific contract is difficult without more data on fuel types, delivery locations, and market conditions at the time of award, but it signifies a significant investment in logistical support.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or opportunities for small businesses. The award to foreign entities further suggests that small businesses were unlikely to be involved in this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's internal procurement and financial oversight mechanisms. However, the lack of transparency regarding the foreign awardees significantly complicates robust oversight. Assessing accountability measures is difficult without knowing the specific entities involved and the terms of their engagement. Inspector General jurisdiction might be applicable, but the foreign nature of the awardee could present jurisdictional challenges.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Fuel Purchases
Aviation Logistics Support Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support
Air Transportation Services

Risk Flags

Lack of Transparency in Awardee Identification
Sole-Source Procurement Without Clear Justification
Potential for Suboptimal Value Due to Lack of Competition
Difficulty in Performance Monitoring and Accountability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.0 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION FUEL.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-08-01. End: 2018-12-30.

What specific types of aviation fuel were procured under this contract, and what were the unit prices?

The provided data does not specify the exact types of aviation fuel (e.g., JP-8, Jet A-1) procured under this $30 million contract. Similarly, detailed unit pricing information is not available. The contract type is 'FIRM FIXED PRICE,' which suggests that the price per unit or for a defined quantity was agreed upon in advance. However, without access to the contract details or award documents, it is impossible to ascertain the specific fuel types or the agreed-upon unit costs. This lack of detail hinders a precise analysis of cost-effectiveness.

Can the 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' be identified, and what is their track record with the Department of Defense?

The data explicitly states 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED),' meaning the specific identities of the companies or entities that received this $30 million contract are not publicly available in this dataset. Consequently, their track record with the Department of Defense, or any other entity, cannot be assessed from this information. This lack of transparency is a significant concern, as it prevents due diligence regarding the contractor's past performance, reliability, and compliance history, which are crucial factors in evaluating the risk associated with any award.

How does the $30 million expenditure on aviation fuel compare to similar contracts awarded by the Department of the Army or other DoD branches?

Comparing this $30 million aviation fuel contract requires access to a broader dataset of similar procurements. However, $30 million represents a substantial sum for a single contract, even within the large budget of the Department of Defense. The 'Department of the Army' is listed as the 'Sub-Agency,' suggesting this fuel was intended for Army aviation assets. Without comparative data on the volume of fuel, duration, and specific operational contexts of other contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high, low, or average spending. However, the sole-source nature and undisclosed awardees make direct value comparison problematic.

What were the specific justifications for awarding this contract on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis?

The justification for awarding this contract on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis is not provided in the given data. Typically, sole-source justifications are required by federal acquisition regulations and can include reasons such as only one responsible source being available, urgent and compelling needs, or specific international agreements. The absence of this justification in the data prevents an analysis of whether the sole-source award was appropriate and necessary, or if it potentially bypassed opportunities for better pricing and competition. This lack of transparency raises questions about the procurement process.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a significant fuel contract to undisclosed foreign entities?

Awarding a $30 million aviation fuel contract to undisclosed foreign entities presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's a lack of transparency, making it difficult to verify the legitimacy and reliability of the awardee. This can obscure potential conflicts of interest or national security concerns. Secondly, without a competitive process, there's a heightened risk of inflated pricing and suboptimal value for taxpayer money. Thirdly, enforcing contract terms, quality standards, and addressing performance issues can be more complex with foreign entities, especially if their legal jurisdiction and operational bases are unclear. Finally, reliance on undisclosed foreign suppliers could pose supply chain vulnerabilities.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Other Support Activities for Air Transportation' by the Department of the Army?

The provided data only includes details for this single $30 million contract (NAICS 488190) awarded in 2017-2018. It does not offer historical spending patterns for the 'Other Support Activities for Air Transportation' category by the Department of the Army or any other agency. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to a comprehensive database of federal contracts over multiple fiscal years. Such an analysis would reveal trends, identify major suppliers, and potentially highlight periods of increased or decreased spending in this sector, providing context for the significance of this particular contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Air Transportation › Other Support Activities for Air Transportation

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $74,026,580

Exercised Options: $40,035,574

Current Obligation: $30,035,574

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline