DoD's $23.5M Camp Bucca prison upgrade contract awarded to foreign entity under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,499,630 ($23.5M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-23

End Date: 2011-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,683 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GDW07C2001} CAMP BUCCA 13 PRISON COMPOUND UPGRADE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.5 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GDW07C2001} CAMP BUCCA 13 PRISON COMPOUND UPGRADE Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a miscellaneous foreign awardee, raising questions about domestic economic impact. 2. The contract was competed fully and openly, suggesting a competitive process was followed. 3. A firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility. 4. The contract duration of over 4 years suggests a significant and complex project. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611 points to management consulting services, which may not align with a prison compound upgrade. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates no specific provisions were made for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of 'prison compound upgrade' and the services provided under NAICS 541611. The award to a 'miscellaneous foreign awardee' also complicates direct comparison to domestic contracts. The firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government, but the overall value proposition is unclear due to the unusual combination of service code and project description.

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. While the number of bidders is not specified, this method generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select the best value offer. However, the award to a foreign entity warrants further scrutiny regarding the competitive landscape and whether domestic firms were adequately considered or participated.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to ensure the government receives competitive pricing. However, the award to a foreign entity may mean that taxpayer funds are not directly benefiting domestic businesses or the U.S. economy as much as they could have.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely the foreign awardee and its personnel involved in the upgrade. The services delivered are related to the upgrade and management of a prison compound, likely impacting military operations or security in the region. The geographic impact is centered around Camp Bucca, likely in Iraq, given the context of military operations during the contract period. Workforce implications would primarily affect the contractor's employees, potentially including both local and foreign labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to a foreign entity may limit domestic economic benefits and job creation.
The mismatch between NAICS code (management consulting) and project description (prison upgrade) raises concerns about the appropriateness of the service classification and potential scope creep.
Lack of transparency regarding the number of bidders and specific evaluation criteria makes it difficult to fully assess the competitive fairness and value.
The contract's significant duration and value could indicate substantial risks if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

The use of a firm-fixed-price contract type helps control costs for the government.
Awarding under full and open competition suggests an effort to maximize competition and potentially achieve better pricing.
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating it aligns with military operational needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector, specifically under management consulting. However, the nature of the work (prison compound upgrade) suggests a blend of construction management and security services, which are often distinct categories. Comparable spending benchmarks for prison upgrades are difficult to establish without knowing the specific location and scale, but large infrastructure projects typically involve significant capital investment. The award to a foreign entity in a region of military operation is not uncommon for support services.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, and the 'sb' field is false. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance. The award to a foreign entity further suggests that small business participation, particularly domestic U.S. small businesses, was likely minimal or non-existent.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which places cost risk on the contractor. Transparency is limited by the available data; details on performance reviews, audits, or specific oversight activities are not provided. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Construction and Engineering Services
Security Services Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support
Logistics and Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential NAICS code misapplication
Award to foreign entity may limit domestic economic benefits
Lack of bidder transparency
Ambiguity in contract scope description

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.5 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GDW07C2001} CAMP BUCCA 13 PRISON COMPOUND UPGRADE

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 $23.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-23. End: 2011-12-31.

What was the specific nature of the 'prison compound upgrade' and how did it align with the NAICS code for Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services?

The provided data lists the NAICS code as 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) and the description as 'CAMP BUCCA 13 PRISON COMPOUND UPGRADE.' This presents a potential discrepancy, as prison upgrades typically involve construction, engineering, and facilities management services rather than pure management consulting. It is possible that the contract encompassed project management, planning, and oversight of the upgrade, which could fall under consulting. Alternatively, the NAICS code might have been misapplied or the description is overly broad. Without further details on the contract's statement of work, it's difficult to definitively reconcile the service code with the project's physical nature. This ambiguity could indicate a risk of misclassification or a contract that evolved beyond its initial intended scope.

How many bids were received for this contract, and what was the competitive landscape like?

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which theoretically allows all responsible sources to bid. However, the specific number of bids received is not provided in the data. The award to a 'miscellaneous foreign awardee' suggests that the competition may have included international firms. While full and open competition aims to maximize the number of bidders and drive down prices, the lack of specific bidder numbers makes it difficult to assess the true level of competition. It's possible that only a few foreign entities were capable of or interested in bidding on this particular project, potentially limiting the price discovery benefits typically associated with robust competition.

What is the significance of awarding a contract of this nature to a 'miscellaneous foreign awardee'?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude ($23.5 million) to a 'miscellaneous foreign awardee' for a prison compound upgrade in a theater of operations like Camp Bucca (likely Iraq) has several implications. Primarily, it means that U.S. taxpayer funds are being spent with a non-U.S. entity, potentially limiting direct economic benefits such as job creation or investment within the United States. While foreign awardees are common for overseas military support contracts, the term 'miscellaneous' suggests a less established or perhaps a more specialized entity. This could introduce additional complexities in terms of oversight, legal jurisdiction, and supply chain management compared to contracting with a known domestic firm. It also raises questions about whether domestic capabilities were fully explored or if there were specific reasons (e.g., specialized expertise, local presence) that favored a foreign awardee.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact the government's risk and potential for cost savings in this project?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government, especially for projects with well-defined scopes, like a prison compound upgrade. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns. This means the government pays a set price, and any costs incurred by the contractor above that price are their responsibility. This structure incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and complete the work within budget. For the government, it provides cost certainty, making budgeting more predictable. However, if the scope of work was not clearly defined or if unforeseen issues arose, the contractor might be less inclined to address them without additional compensation, potentially leading to disputes or a less-than-optimal outcome if not managed carefully.

What is the historical spending context for similar prison compound upgrades or management consulting services in overseas military installations?

Historical spending data for 'prison compound upgrades' specifically, especially in overseas military installations, is not readily available in a generalized format, as such projects are often unique to specific operational theaters and security requirements. However, spending on base infrastructure, security enhancements, and operational support services in conflict zones can be substantial. Contracts for base operations, construction, and security management in regions like Iraq during the period of this contract (2007-2011) often ran into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The $23.5 million for this specific upgrade appears moderate within that broader context. Spending on management consulting services (NAICS 541611) for government projects is also significant, but typically focuses on process improvement, strategic planning, or organizational efficiency, making its application to a physical upgrade noteworthy.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: MISCELLANEOUS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

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: $23,499,630

Exercised Options: $23,499,630

Current Obligation: $23,499,630

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline