DoD spent $15.6M on staging area security, with 66% of the contract value awarded to foreign entities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,592,755 ($15.6M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-27

End Date: 2008-05-19

Contract Duration: 235 days

Daily Burn Rate: $66.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GDW07C4042} PROVIDE SITE SECURITY FOR TWO LMCC STAGING AREAS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GDW07C4042} PROVIDE SITE SECURITY FOR TWO LMCC STAGING AREAS Key points: 1. The contract's value represents a significant investment in logistical support for staging areas. 2. Competition was robust, suggesting potential for competitive pricing, though the award to foreign entities warrants scrutiny. 3. Performance risk appears moderate given the short duration and defined scope. 4. The contract falls within administrative and management consulting services, a broad category. 5. Spending on staging area security is a critical component of operational readiness for the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging due to the specific nature of 'staging area security' and the award to foreign entities. The total value of $15.6 million for a less than one-year contract suggests a substantial per-day cost. Without comparable contracts for similar services in similar geopolitical contexts, assessing value for money is difficult. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial if costs are well-managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The fact that 66% of the contract value ($10.3 million) went to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is a key detail. While full and open competition is generally positive for price discovery, the significant portion awarded to foreign entities raises questions about the domestic industrial base participation and potential geopolitical considerations influencing the bidding landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers, as it encourages multiple bids and can drive down prices. However, the substantial award to foreign entities may mean that a significant portion of taxpayer funds did not directly benefit the U.S. economy or domestic businesses.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its operational units requiring secure staging areas. The services delivered include site security for two logistical staging areas. The geographic impact is localized to the specific staging areas, but the operational impact could be broader, enabling troop and equipment movement. Workforce implications are unclear, but security services typically involve personnel deployment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Significant portion of contract value awarded to foreign entities, raising questions about domestic economic benefit.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the security provided.
The specific nature of 'staging areas' and their security needs can be highly variable, making direct comparisons difficult.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract structure helps control costs and provides budget certainty.
Defined scope of work for site security at two specific locations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services sector (NAICS 541611). This sector is broad and includes services related to general management consulting, such as operational planning and security consulting. The market for defense-related security services is substantial, driven by ongoing global operations and the need to protect critical infrastructure and personnel. Benchmarking this specific contract is difficult without more granular data on security services for logistical staging areas.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' suggests that the primary recipients were not U.S. small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses are not detailed in the provided data, but it is unlikely to be a primary focus given the nature of the awardees.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Department of the Army's contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified security services. Transparency is limited by the provided data; further details on performance reviews or audits would be needed for a full assessment. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Security Contracts
Logistics and Staging Area Support
Foreign Military Sales Support
Base Operations Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Significant foreign awardee portion
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Broad NAICS code potentially obscuring service specifics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GDW07C4042} PROVIDE SITE SECURITY FOR TWO LMCC STAGING AREAS

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 $15.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-27. End: 2008-05-19.

What specific security services were mandated under this contract, and how were they measured for effectiveness?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'PROVIDE SITE SECURITY FOR TWO LMCC STAGING AREAS.' However, the specific security services required (e.g., personnel, technology, patrols, access control) are not detailed. Effectiveness would typically be measured through performance metrics outlined in the contract's statement of work, such as response times, incident reporting, and adherence to security protocols. Without access to the full contract document, a precise assessment of mandated services and their measured effectiveness is not possible. The firm fixed-price nature implies that the contractor was responsible for delivering the agreed-upon security outcomes within the budget.

How does the $15.6 million total contract value compare to similar security contracts for staging areas, considering the duration?

Direct comparison of this $15.6 million contract, which lasted approximately 8 months (September 2007 to May 2008), to similar contracts is challenging due to the specificity of 'LMCC staging areas' and the limited public data on such niche security services. However, on a monthly basis, the contract value averaged approximately $1.95 million ($15.6M / 8 months). This figure needs to be contextualized by the location, threat level, and specific security requirements of the staging areas. Without comparable data points for similar DoD staging area security contracts, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represents a high, low, or average expenditure. The significant portion awarded to foreign entities also complicates direct benchmarking against U.S.-based security firms.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding 66% of a security contract to foreign entities?

Awarding a significant portion (66%, or approximately $10.3 million) of a security contract to foreign entities presents several potential risks. These can include geopolitical risks, such as shifting alliances or political instability in the host country affecting service continuity. There are also concerns regarding intelligence sharing and data security, as foreign entities may be subject to different legal frameworks and oversight regarding sensitive information. Furthermore, it raises questions about the U.S. industrial base's capacity and the economic benefits derived from taxpayer funds, as a substantial amount may not be reinvested domestically. Ensuring compliance with U.S. security standards and vetting personnel from foreign entities can also be more complex.

What was the historical spending pattern for staging area security by the Department of the Army prior to this contract?

The provided data only pertains to this single contract (W91GDW07C4042) and does not offer historical spending patterns for staging area security by the Department of the Army. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to broader contract databases or budget reports covering multiple fiscal years and various contracts related to logistical support and security. Without this broader context, it's impossible to determine if the $15.6 million expenditure represented an increase, decrease, or continuation of previous spending levels for similar services. Analyzing trends would require examining spending across different contracts, agencies, and time periods.

How does the 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' classification (NAICS 541611) accurately reflect the 'site security' service provided?

The classification of 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611) for a 'site security' contract might seem incongruous at first glance. However, NAICS 541611 is a broad category that can encompass a wide range of management and operational consulting services. Security consulting, risk assessment, and the development of security protocols can fall under management consulting, especially when related to operational efficiency and risk mitigation for logistical operations. It's possible the contract included elements of security planning, risk analysis, or management oversight of security operations, rather than solely providing physical security guards. The classification suggests the service may have involved more than just boots-on-the-ground security, potentially including strategic advice or management of security functions.

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: $15,592,755

Exercised Options: $15,592,755

Current Obligation: $15,592,755

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline