DoD's $31.17M Ground Fuels Contract Awarded to Undisclosed Foreign Entity Amidst Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,166,543 ($31.2M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-12-27

End Date: 2021-05-13

Contract Duration: 137 days

Daily Burn Rate: $227.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GROUND FUELS, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (MOD) LOCATIONS: {111TH REGION 207TH REGION 209TH REGION, AND 217TH REGION}

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.2 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: GROUND FUELS, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (MOD) LOCATIONS: {111TH REGION 207TH REGION 209TH REGION, AND 217TH REGION} Key points: 1. The contract's value of over $31 million for ground fuels suggests a significant operational requirement for the Department of Defense. 2. The use of 'Full and Open Competition' indicates a broad solicitation, yet the awardee is undisclosed and foreign, raising questions about transparency and domestic industrial base support. 3. The short duration of the contract (approximately 4.5 months) may point to an interim solution or a specific, time-bound operational need. 4. The fixed-price contract type generally offers cost certainty for the government, but the specific pricing structure and profit margins are not detailed. 5. The lack of specific performance metrics or risk indicators in the provided data makes a comprehensive assessment of value-for-money challenging. 6. The contract's focus on pipeline transportation of refined petroleum products highlights a critical logistical component for military operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is difficult without knowing the specific types and quantities of fuels procured, as well as the geographic scope of delivery beyond the listed regions. The undisclosed foreign awardee also complicates direct comparison to domestic contracts. However, a $31 million expenditure over roughly four months for fuel logistics is substantial and warrants scrutiny to ensure competitive pricing and efficient resource allocation. The fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but the ultimate value depends on the negotiated rates and market conditions at the time of award.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, the data does not specify the number of bidders or the extent of outreach conducted. The fact that the awardee is an undisclosed foreign entity, despite a competitive process, raises questions about the effectiveness of the competition in driving down costs and ensuring the best value for the U.S. taxpayer. It is unclear if domestic suppliers were unable or unwilling to compete or if foreign entities held a significant advantage.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for price discovery, the undisclosed foreign awardee limits transparency for taxpayers. It is difficult to ascertain if the competition truly maximized savings or if domestic capabilities were overlooked.

Public Impact

Military readiness and operational capability are directly supported by the provision of essential ground fuels. Personnel and equipment within the 111th, 207th, 209th, and 217th Regions of the Ministry of Defense benefit from uninterrupted fuel supply. The contract supports the logistical infrastructure required for defense operations, potentially impacting national security. The workforce implications are indirect, likely involving personnel in logistics, transportation, and fuel management within the Ministry of Defense.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the identity of the foreign awardee.
Potential missed opportunities to support domestic small businesses or industries through subcontracting.
Uncertainty about the specific performance standards and quality control measures for the delivered fuels.
Limited insight into the cost breakdown and profit margins, making value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a full and open competition process, theoretically allowing for broad market participation.
The firm fixed-price contract type offers predictability in costs for the government.
The contract addresses a critical operational need for ground fuels, ensuring mission support.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector relies heavily on robust and secure fuel supply chains. This contract falls within the broader category of defense logistics and support services. The market for refined petroleum products is global, but defense contracts often have specific security and reliability requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other fuel supply contracts awarded by the DoD or allied nations, considering factors like volume, delivery terms, and product specifications. The undisclosed nature of the awardee makes direct comparison to other contracts challenging.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was not a factor in this award (ss=false, sb=false). There is no information regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting to small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee, an undisclosed foreign entity, may not be obligated or incentivized to engage U.S. small businesses, potentially limiting opportunities within the small business ecosystem for this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management oversight mechanisms. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the firm fixed-price delivery order, including delivery schedules and fuel specifications. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed identity of the awardee. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected in the procurement or execution of the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Fuel Procurement
Ministry of Defense Logistics Contracts
Pipeline Transportation Services
Foreign Military Sales Support
Refined Petroleum Product Supply Chains

Risk Flags

Undisclosed Awardee Identity
Foreign Awardee
Potential Lack of Domestic Industrial Base Support
Limited Transparency in Competition Outcome

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.2 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). GROUND FUELS, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE (MOD) LOCATIONS: {111TH REGION 207TH REGION 209TH REGION, AND 217TH REGION}

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 $31.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-12-27. End: 2021-05-13.

What specific types and quantities of ground fuels were procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact types (e.g., diesel, jet fuel, gasoline) or quantities of ground fuels procured. It only indicates 'GROUND FUELS' and 'Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products.' To fully assess the contract's value and impact, detailed information on the fuel specifications, volumes, and delivery points would be necessary. This level of detail is often found in the underlying delivery order documentation, which is not publicly available in this dataset.

What is the rationale behind awarding the contract to an undisclosed foreign entity despite full and open competition?

The rationale for awarding to an undisclosed foreign entity under full and open competition is not explicitly stated in the provided data. Possible reasons could include the foreign entity offering the most competitive price, possessing specialized capabilities or infrastructure required for the specific regions, or having existing agreements that facilitate such awards. However, the lack of transparency regarding the awardee's identity raises concerns about whether the competition effectively maximized value for U.S. taxpayers and supported domestic industry. Further investigation into the bidding process and award criteria would be needed to understand this decision.

How does the $31.17 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar ground fuel procurements by the DoD?

Comparing this $31.17 million contract to historical spending requires access to broader DoD fuel procurement data. This contract covers a short period (approx. 4.5 months) and specific regions. Annual or multi-year contracts for similar services could range significantly higher or lower depending on scale, duration, and geographic scope. Without a baseline of average costs per gallon or per operational unit for comparable DoD fuel contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending. However, the amount is substantial for the given timeframe, suggesting a significant operational demand.

What are the specific risks associated with awarding fuel contracts to foreign entities, particularly when their identity is undisclosed?

Awarding fuel contracts to foreign entities, especially with undisclosed identities, introduces several risks. These include potential national security concerns if the supplier's affiliations are unknown or problematic, supply chain vulnerabilities if the foreign entity faces geopolitical instability or sanctions, and difficulties in enforcing contract terms or quality standards. Furthermore, it can undermine the development and utilization of domestic industrial capabilities. The lack of transparency makes it harder to vet the supplier's reliability, ethical practices, and compliance with U.S. regulations, potentially leading to unforeseen operational disruptions or financial liabilities.

What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure the quality and timely delivery of fuels under this contract?

Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office responsible for the award. Quality assurance would likely involve inspection and acceptance procedures at the point of delivery, ensuring the fuels meet the specified standards outlined in the delivery order. Timeliness would be monitored against the delivery schedule. While the firm fixed-price nature incentivizes performance, the effectiveness of oversight depends on the diligence of government representatives in monitoring compliance and addressing any deviations or issues promptly. Specific quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would detail these procedures.

Does the 'Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products' indicate a reliance on specific infrastructure, and what are the implications?

The mention of 'Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products' suggests a reliance on existing or established pipeline infrastructure for fuel delivery. This implies a potentially efficient and cost-effective method for moving large volumes of fuel, especially over land. However, it also indicates a dependency on the integrity and availability of these pipelines. Disruptions due to maintenance, accidents, or security threats could significantly impact fuel supply. The use of pipelines might also limit flexibility in delivery locations compared to other methods like trucking or rail, concentrating risk around the pipeline network itself.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Other Pipeline Transportation › Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products

Product/Service Code: FUELS, LUBRICANTS, OILS, WAXES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W91B4N17R0005

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, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,166,543

Exercised Options: $31,166,543

Current Obligation: $31,166,543

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91B4N17D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline