DoD's $17.4M Industrial Building Construction Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,436,103 ($17.4M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-28

End Date: 2013-06-01

Contract Duration: 1,342 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: [PIIN: W91GDW-09-C-4050] GDCT COMPLEX

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: [PIIN: W91GDW-09-C-4050] GDCT COMPLEX Key points: 1. Contract value of $17.4 million for industrial building construction. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors. 3. The contract duration of 1342 days indicates a long-term project. 4. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236210 points to the specific construction services. 6. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 7. No small business set-aside was utilized for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of work and location. However, $17.4 million for industrial building construction over approximately 3.7 years suggests a significant project. The Firm Fixed Price contract type implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the contractor is experienced and the scope is well-defined. Without comparable contract data for similar industrial building projects of this scale and complexity, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The fact that it was competed broadly suggests that the Department of the Army sought to maximize competition to achieve the best possible outcome for this industrial building construction project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through robust bidding and ensuring that the government receives services from the most capable and cost-effective providers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its operational units requiring enhanced industrial facilities. The services delivered include the construction of industrial buildings, which are critical for military readiness and logistics. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at a specific military installation or base where the construction took place. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs, potentially involving skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope was not perfectly defined for a fixed-price contract.
Dependence on foreign awardees could introduce logistical or geopolitical risks.
Ensuring quality control and adherence to US construction standards for foreign contractors may require diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a wide pool of potential contractors were considered.
Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Long contract duration allows for project completion and potential for contractor learning curve benefits.

Sector Analysis

Industrial building construction is a significant segment within the broader construction industry. This contract falls under the heavy and civil engineering construction subsector, focusing on specialized facilities for industrial purposes. The market for such construction is often influenced by government spending, particularly for defense and infrastructure projects. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale industrial or military facility construction contracts awarded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. This means that the competition was open to all eligible businesses, regardless of size. While there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by this specific award, the prime contractor may still engage small businesses for specialized services or materials as part of their project execution. The absence of a set-aside suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall bid from the broadest possible market.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the Firm Fixed Price contract type, which penalizes cost overruns for the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Industrial Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Potential for oversight challenges due to foreign awardees.
Scope definition critical for fixed-price construction contracts.
Contract duration may indicate project complexity or phased delivery.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. [PIIN: W91GDW-09-C-4050] GDCT COMPLEX

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 $17.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-28. End: 2013-06-01.

What specific type of industrial buildings were constructed under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Industrial Building Construction' under NAICS code 236210. This code covers the construction of nonresidential buildings, including factories, industrial plants, warehouses, and other industrial facilities. However, the specific details regarding the exact type, purpose, and scale of the buildings constructed are not available in the summary data. Further investigation into the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or related documentation would be necessary to ascertain the precise nature of the industrial facilities built.

What is the track record of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' in similar construction projects?

The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' is a broad categorization and does not refer to a single entity with a specific track record. It implies that the award was made to one or more foreign entities that do not fit into more specific awardee categories. To assess their track record, one would need to identify the specific foreign entity or entities that received the award and then research their past performance on similar government or commercial construction projects. Without knowing the specific awardee(s), it is impossible to evaluate their experience, past performance, or reliability in executing industrial building construction.

How does the $17.4 million contract value compare to typical industrial building construction projects of similar scope?

Assessing the $17.4 million value requires context on the scope, location, and complexity of the industrial buildings. For large-scale industrial facilities, such as manufacturing plants or extensive warehouse complexes, $17.4 million can represent a moderate to significant investment. However, without detailed specifications on square footage, materials, specialized equipment integration, and site preparation requirements, a direct comparison to market benchmarks is difficult. The duration of over 1300 days suggests a substantial project, which could justify this expenditure if the scope was comprehensive. It is advisable to compare this value against similar DoD or other federal agency construction projects of comparable scale and purpose.

What were the key performance metrics or milestones for this contract?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or milestones for this contract. Typically, such details would be outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). These documents usually define deliverables, quality standards, timelines, and acceptance criteria. For a construction contract, milestones might include site preparation completion, foundation pouring, structural erection, interior finishing, and final inspection. Performance would be evaluated against these defined criteria, with potential penalties or incentives tied to meeting or exceeding them. The Firm Fixed Price nature implies that meeting the defined scope within budget is a primary performance indicator.

Are there any known risks associated with awarding large construction contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

Awarding contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' can introduce several risks. These may include challenges in ensuring compliance with U.S. labor laws and safety standards, difficulties in quality assurance and oversight due to geographical distance, potential currency exchange rate fluctuations impacting final costs (though less so with FFP), and geopolitical considerations or trade restrictions. Furthermore, navigating foreign legal and business practices can add complexity. The Department of Defense typically employs rigorous vetting and oversight processes to mitigate these risks when engaging foreign contractors for critical infrastructure projects.

What is the historical spending pattern for industrial building construction by the Department of the Army?

The provided data only pertains to a single contract (W91GDW-09-C-4050). To understand the historical spending patterns for industrial building construction by the Department of the Army, a broader analysis of contract awards over several fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve examining spending trends related to NAICS code 236210 and similar construction codes, identifying major projects, tracking annual expenditures, and noting any shifts in procurement strategies or funding levels. Such an analysis would reveal whether this $17.4 million contract represents a typical investment or an outlier in the context of the Army's overall construction budget and priorities.

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

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: $17,436,103

Exercised Options: $17,436,103

Current Obligation: $17,436,103

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline