DoD's $48M contract for construction and installation services awarded to foreign entities shows a need for robust oversight

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,154,578 ($48.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-07-31

End Date: 2010-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,614 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0071} CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, COMMISSION, TEST AND PLACE IN

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $48.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0071} CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, COMMISSION, TEST AND PLACE IN Key points: 1. The contract's value of $48.15 million over its duration suggests a significant investment in infrastructure or operational support. 2. Awarded to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES,' this contract highlights potential complexities in managing international contractors and ensuring compliance. 3. The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' indicates a broad solicitation, but the nature of the awardee group raises questions about the accessibility of the competition. 4. The contract type, 'FIRM FIXED PRICE,' generally offers cost certainty but can shift risk to the contractor, potentially impacting quality if not managed closely. 5. With a duration of 1614 days (over 4 years), effective management and performance monitoring are crucial for successful delivery. 6. The absence of small business participation suggests this contract was not specifically targeted towards smaller enterprises. 7. The NAICS code 541611 points to administrative and management consulting services, which seems incongruous with 'construct, install, commission, test and place in' services.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the services rendered. However, a $48 million expenditure over four years for construction and installation services, especially when awarded to a group of miscellaneous foreign awardees, warrants scrutiny. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt at cost control, but the broad awardee category could obscure individual contractor performance and pricing. Without more granular data on the specific deliverables and the pricing structure, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money.

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 award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' as a single entity raises questions about the actual breadth of competition. It is unclear if multiple distinct foreign entities competed, or if this represents a consolidated award. The effectiveness of the competition in driving down prices and ensuring the best value cannot be fully assessed without knowing the number of bids received and the nature of the awardee pool.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to maximize the pool of potential bidders, thereby increasing the likelihood of competitive pricing and innovative solutions. However, the broad categorization of the awardee as 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' makes it difficult to ascertain if true price discovery occurred.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the foreign entities that received the contract, providing them with significant revenue and business opportunities. The services delivered are described as 'construct, install, commission, test and place in,' indicating a focus on infrastructure development or operational setup. The geographic impact is not specified but, given the foreign awardees, could be global or concentrated in specific overseas locations where the Department of Defense operates. Workforce implications would primarily affect the employees of the awarded foreign companies, potentially creating or sustaining jobs abroad.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Ambiguity in awardee identity ('MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES') hinders performance tracking and accountability.
Potential for increased logistical and oversight challenges due to foreign awardees.
The NAICS code (541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) appears mismatched with the stated contract services (construction, installation).
Lack of transparency regarding the number of bidders and the specific entities within the 'miscellaneous' group.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, theoretically allowing for broad market participation.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration allows for sustained support and potential for relationship building with awardees.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad construction and professional services sectors. The Department of Defense frequently procures such services globally to support its operational footprint. The market for construction and installation services is vast, with significant competition from both domestic and international firms. The value of $48 million is substantial for a single contract, indicating a project of considerable scale or complexity. Benchmarking against similar DoD construction contracts would require detailed service specifications.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, as the 'sb' field is false. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' further suggests that the focus was not on domestic small business participation. Subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses are unlikely unless specified within the contract terms, which are not detailed here. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers and potentially contracting officer representatives (CORs) to monitor performance and ensure compliance with contract terms. Given the foreign awardees, additional oversight might be required to address logistical, legal, and security considerations. Transparency is limited by the available data, particularly regarding the specific entities comprising the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' and the detailed performance metrics. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Support

Risk Flags

Ambiguous Awardee Identification
Potential NAICS Code Mismatch
Lack of Specific Service Details
Limited Transparency on Competition Effectiveness

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $48.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GXY06C0071} CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, COMMISSION, TEST AND PLACE IN

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 $48.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-31. End: 2010-12-31.

What specific construction and installation services were procured under this contract, and what was the geographic location of performance?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, COMMISSION, TEST AND PLACE IN' services. However, the specific nature of these services (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, equipment) and the precise geographic location(s) of performance are not detailed. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to fully assess the contract's scope, value, and potential risks. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' suggests performance likely occurred outside the United States, potentially in support of military operations or facilities abroad. Further investigation into the contract's details, such as through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or agency contract award databases, would be necessary to obtain this crucial information.

How many distinct entities were included in the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' award, and what was the basis for grouping them?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is highly ambiguous and prevents a clear understanding of the competitive landscape. It is unclear whether this represents a single prime contractor managing multiple foreign subcontractors, or if it signifies multiple independent foreign entities that were awarded portions of the contract. The rationale for grouping these entities under such a broad umbrella term is not provided. This lack of clarity raises concerns about accountability, performance management, and the true extent of competition. Without knowing the number and identity of the individual awardees, it is impossible to assess if the competition was truly robust or if specific foreign entities were favored.

What is the justification for the apparent mismatch between the NAICS code (541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) and the contract description (construction, i

The discrepancy between the stated NAICS code (541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) and the contract description ('CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, COMMISSION, TEST AND PLACE IN') is significant and warrants investigation. Typically, construction and installation services would fall under different NAICS codes, such as those related to heavy construction (e.g., 2362), building construction (e.g., 2361), or specialty trade contractors (e.g., 238). It is possible that the primary contract was for management or consulting services related to these construction activities, with the construction itself being a component. Alternatively, this could represent a data entry error in the procurement system. Clarification from the awarding agency (Department of the Army) is needed to reconcile this discrepancy and accurately categorize the contract's primary purpose.

How was the performance of the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' monitored, and were there any performance issues or disputes during the contract period?

Information regarding the specific performance monitoring mechanisms for the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is not available in the provided data. Given the broad and potentially fragmented nature of this awardee group, effective oversight would have been critical. This would typically involve regular progress reports, site inspections (if applicable), quality assurance checks, and adherence to key performance indicators. Without access to contract performance evaluations, past performance reviews, or any dispute resolution records, it is impossible to assess whether the contractor(s) met expectations or if any issues arose during the contract's lifespan from July 2006 to December 2010.

What was the total spending trend for similar construction and installation services by the Department of the Army during the contract period (2006-2010)?

To assess the spending trend for similar services, one would need to analyze historical procurement data for the Department of the Army (DoA) between fiscal years 2006 and 2010, specifically filtering for contracts with relevant NAICS codes related to construction and installation. This contract's value of approximately $48 million represents a significant single award. Understanding the broader spending context would involve examining the total annual outlays by the DoA for construction and installation services during that period. This would help determine if this contract was an outlier, part of a larger trend, or representative of typical spending levels for such services during that timeframe. Such analysis would require access to comprehensive historical federal procurement databases.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

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, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $48,154,578

Exercised Options: $48,154,578

Current Obligation: $48,154,578

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: SUPPLIES OR SERVICES PURSUANT TO FAR 12.102(F)

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline