DoD's $10.17M Remote Monitoring System Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,171,007 ($10.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-05-04

End Date: 2008-03-28

Contract Duration: 694 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0093} PROVIDING REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GXY06C0093} PROVIDING REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the time of award, transferring some risk to the contractor. 3. The contract duration of 694 days (approx. 23 months) suggests a medium-term project. 4. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' raises questions about the specific entities involved and their geographic location. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611 points to administrative management and general management consulting services. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the remote monitoring system's capabilities and the market rates for such services. The total award amount of $10.17 million over approximately 23 months averages to about $442,000 per month. Given the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation, it's difficult to assess if this represents a competitive price or if there were opportunities for better value through domestic or more specialized contractors. Further analysis would require understanding the scope of work and comparing it to similar systems procured by the DoD or other agencies.

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 a bid. This suggests a robust competitive environment at the time of solicitation. However, the specific number of bidders and the evaluation criteria are not provided, which would offer further insight into the intensity of the competition. The designation of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' might imply that the competition, while open, did not yield a large number of domestic bidders or that foreign entities were particularly competitive in this niche.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price discovery and potentially leading to lower costs due to multiple bidders vying for the contract. This approach aims to ensure the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army, which receives the remote monitoring system to enhance its operational capabilities. The services delivered include the provision and potentially maintenance of a remote monitoring system, crucial for surveillance, data collection, or operational oversight. The geographic impact is not specified but could be related to military installations or operational theaters where the Army requires remote monitoring. Workforce implications are unclear but could involve training for military personnel on system operation or the employment of technical staff for system support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specificity regarding 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' hinders understanding of contractor identity and potential risks.
The nature of 'remote monitoring system' is broad, raising questions about its technological sophistication and potential obsolescence.
Limited information on performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the system's effectiveness post-award.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process aimed at achieving best value.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps manage cost certainty for the government.
The contract addresses a specific need for a remote monitoring system within the Department of the Army.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of a remote monitoring system falls within the broader defense technology and services sector. This sector is characterized by high innovation, significant government investment, and specialized requirements. The market for such systems can range from off-the-shelf solutions to highly customized, integrated platforms. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific functionalities and scale of the monitoring system. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of advanced monitoring and surveillance technologies, with annual spending in the billions across various categories.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award, as 'sb' is false and 'ss' is false. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This suggests the contract was likely awarded to larger entities or foreign prime contractors, with no specific provisions to benefit the small business ecosystem in this instance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Information Technology Services
Army Command and Control Systems
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems
Global Force Management Systems

Risk Flags

Lack of specificity regarding contractor identity.
Potential for geopolitical or supply chain risks associated with foreign awardees.
Ambiguity in the scope and technical capabilities of the 'remote monitoring system'.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GXY06C0093} PROVIDING REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM

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 $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-05-04. End: 2008-03-28.

What specific capabilities did the remote monitoring system provide, and how did these align with the Army's operational needs at the time?

The provided data does not specify the exact capabilities of the remote monitoring system. The NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) is somewhat broad and doesn't directly describe a technology system. However, 'Remote Monitoring System' implies capabilities related to surveillance, data acquisition, or status tracking from a distance. For the Department of the Army, such systems could be used for monitoring equipment, facilities, personnel, or operational environments in various theaters. Without further details on the system's technical specifications, its precise alignment with Army needs remains speculative. Future analysis could involve seeking the original contract statement of work or performance reports.

How did the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation impact the competition and the overall value proposition for the DoD?

The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation suggests that the primary contractor(s) were not U.S.-based entities, or at least not easily categorized within standard U.S. business classifications. This could have implications for competition by potentially limiting the pool of domestic bidders or indicating that foreign firms offered a more competitive solution. From a value perspective, it raises questions about potential differences in cost structures, technological expertise, or geopolitical considerations. While full and open competition theoretically ensures best value, the nature of foreign awardees might introduce complexities in oversight, intellectual property protection, or long-term support, which could affect the true value proposition beyond the initial price.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how was contractor performance measured?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or details on how the contractor's performance was measured. For a firm-fixed-price contract like this, performance is typically assessed against the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). Common metrics for a remote monitoring system might include system uptime, data accuracy, response times for alerts, security compliance, and successful integration with existing Army networks. Without access to the SOW or performance evaluations, it is impossible to definitively state the KPIs or the contractor's success in meeting them. Further investigation would be needed to uncover performance reports or contract close-out documentation.

Were there any significant risks identified during the solicitation or award process, and how were they mitigated?

The available data does not explicitly detail any risks identified during the solicitation or award process for this contract. However, common risks associated with procuring complex systems, especially from foreign entities, could include technical integration challenges, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, supply chain disruptions, intellectual property concerns, and geopolitical instability. The firm-fixed-price contract structure itself mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. The 'full and open competition' aspect suggests that the Army sought to identify and select the offer with the best balance of risk and performance. Specific risk mitigation strategies would likely be detailed in the contract's SOW and associated documentation, which are not provided here.

How does this $10.17 million contract compare to other similar remote monitoring system procurements by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Comparing this $10.17 million contract requires knowledge of the specific type and scale of the remote monitoring system. If it was a large-scale, integrated system for critical infrastructure or widespread surveillance, $10.17 million over approximately 23 months might be within a reasonable range, especially considering potential R&D or customization costs. However, if it was for a more localized or less sophisticated system, the cost could be considered high. Without detailed specifications and market research data on comparable systems (e.g., sensor types, data processing capabilities, network integration, geographic coverage), a precise comparison is difficult. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' aspect also adds a layer of complexity to direct cost comparisons with domestic procurements.

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: $10,171,007

Exercised Options: $10,171,007

Current Obligation: $10,171,007

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline