DoD's $17.7M contract for administrative management consulting services awarded to a miscellaneous foreign entity

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,700,595 ($17.7M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-08-09

End Date: 2008-10-06

Contract Duration: 789 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0075} CONTRACT FOR ALL SERVICES NECESSARY REQUIRED TO CA

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0075} CONTRACT FOR ALL SERVICES NECESSARY REQUIRED TO CA Key points: 1. The contract value of $17.7 million over approximately 2.6 years suggests a moderate investment in consulting services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, this contract indicates a broad search for qualified providers. 3. The use of a definitive contract type implies a clear scope of work and established terms. 4. The fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially leading to more predictable expenses. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the competition may not have specifically targeted smaller enterprises. 6. The primary service category is Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, a common area for federal support.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contracts. The fixed-price nature is generally favorable for cost control. However, the lack of detailed performance data or comparison to similar contracts makes a definitive value assessment difficult. The per-unit cost is not readily calculable from the provided data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors were likely solicited and evaluated. This approach is designed to maximize the pool of potential offerors and encourage competitive pricing. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competitive process was intended.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and improve the quality of services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of the Army components requiring administrative and general management consulting. The services delivered focus on enhancing operational efficiency and management practices within the agency. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of the Army's operational areas, wherever these services are needed. Workforce implications may include the engagement of specialized consultants to support internal government personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the consulting services.
The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation raises questions about the contractor's location and potential implications for oversight and communication.
Limited information on the specific nature of the administrative management and general management consulting provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process.
Fixed-price contract type helps to control costs and shifts financial risk to the contractor.
The contract duration of approximately 2.6 years allows for sustained support and implementation of consulting recommendations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. This sector is a significant component of federal spending, supporting various agencies in improving efficiency, strategy, and operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for similar consulting services across different federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the competition was not specifically structured to favor small businesses. Consequently, there may be limited direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless the prime contractor voluntarily includes them in their team.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting officer and their representatives. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases, though specific performance details may be less public.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Professional Services Contracts
Department of Defense Support Services
Administrative Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential oversight challenges due to foreign awardee status.
Ambiguity in the specific services provided.
Lack of detailed performance metrics for value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.7 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GXY06C0075} CONTRACT FOR ALL SERVICES NECESSARY REQUIRED TO CA

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 $17.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-08-09. End: 2008-10-06.

What specific administrative management and general management consulting services were provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'ALL SERVICES NECESSARY REQUIRED TO CA' within the scope of 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611). However, the exact nature of these services is not detailed in the summary data. Typically, such contracts could encompass areas like organizational structure analysis, process improvement, strategic planning, human capital management consulting, and operational efficiency assessments. Without access to the full contract statement of work, the precise deliverables and activities remain unspecified. The 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' designation also adds a layer of ambiguity regarding the specific entity providing these services and their operational base.

How does the $17.7 million contract value compare to similar administrative consulting contracts within the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $17.7 million value requires access to a database of similar Department of Defense (DoD) contracts for administrative management and general management consulting services awarded over a comparable timeframe (2006-2008). Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this contract was high, low, or average in value. However, $17.7 million over approximately 2.6 years represents an average annual value of roughly $6.8 million. This figure can be used as a preliminary benchmark. Factors like the specific scope of work, duration, and the complexity of the issues addressed would influence the 'fairness' of this value. Further analysis would involve identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes and agency solicitations.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' for consulting services?

Awarding contracts to 'miscellaneous foreign awardees' can introduce several risks. These may include challenges in communication due to language barriers or time zone differences, difficulties in ensuring compliance with U.S. regulations and standards, and potential security concerns related to data handling and intellectual property. Oversight and performance monitoring can also be more complex. Furthermore, there might be legal or geopolitical considerations depending on the country of origin of the awardee. The 'miscellaneous' descriptor suggests a lack of specific identification, potentially increasing the risk profile if the contractor's background and capabilities are not thoroughly vetted.

Given the fixed-price contract type, what is the contractor's incentive regarding performance and cost control?

Under a fixed-price contract, the contractor, MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES, has a strong incentive to control costs and manage the project efficiently to maximize their profit margin. The total price is set, so any savings achieved below that price benefit the contractor. Conversely, if costs exceed the fixed price, the contractor absorbs the loss. This structure incentivizes the contractor to deliver the agreed-upon services within the budget and timeline. For the government, it provides cost certainty. However, it can also incentivize the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope if not carefully monitored, making robust performance oversight crucial despite the fixed-price nature.

What does the 'full and open competition' designation imply about the contractor selection process and potential pricing?

The 'full and open competition' designation signifies that the Department of the Army sought proposals from all responsible sources, without restrictions. This implies a broad solicitation process, potentially involving numerous bidders. Such a competitive environment is generally expected to lead to more favorable pricing for the government, as contractors vie for the award by offering their best terms and prices. It also suggests that the chosen contractor, MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES, was deemed the most advantageous offer based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation, which typically include price, technical approach, past performance, and other factors. The absence of specific bidders' numbers limits a precise assessment of the competitive intensity.

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: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,700,595

Exercised Options: $17,700,595

Current Obligation: $17,700,595

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline