DoD's $14.7M contract for management consulting services awarded to foreign entities raises value and competition questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,770,879 ($14.8M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-02-14

End Date: 2010-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,082 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GY007C0004} MNTSCI PDS SERVICES FOR SIX MONTHS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY007C0004} MNTSCI PDS SERVICES FOR SIX MONTHS Key points: 1. The contract's value for management consulting services appears high relative to the duration and scope. 2. Award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests a lack of domestic competition or specialized foreign expertise. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty but may not incentivize optimal value if pricing was not rigorously benchmarked. 4. A long performance period (over 3 years) for administrative management services warrants scrutiny of ongoing necessity and cost-effectiveness. 5. The absence of small business involvement indicates a focus on larger, potentially foreign-based, prime contractors. 6. The contract's broad classification ('Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services') lacks specificity, making direct performance assessment difficult.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of approximately $14.7 million over 1082 days (roughly 3 years) for administrative management and general management consulting services appears substantial. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' is unusual and raises questions about whether domestic firms were considered or if there was a specific need for foreign-based expertise. The firm fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty, but the initial pricing and subsequent adjustments, if any, are not detailed, making a definitive value assessment challenging.

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 offers. However, the award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests that either foreign entities were the only or most competitive bidders, or that the contracting process did not effectively attract domestic competition for these specific services. The fact that only one award was made under this competition implies that either the scope was highly specialized or that the competition was not robust in terms of the number of viable bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers by encouraging broad participation, the outcome here – an award to foreign entities – may mean that taxpayer funds are leaving the domestic economy without a clear demonstration of superior value or necessity compared to domestic alternatives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the foreign entities that received the contract, providing them with significant revenue. The services delivered are broadly categorized as administrative management and general management consulting, which could support various Department of Defense operations. The geographic impact is primarily on the foreign awardee's location, though the services may indirectly support DoD operations globally. There are no explicit workforce implications mentioned for the domestic economy, as the award went to foreign entities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' lacks transparency regarding specific contractor identity and potential conflicts of interest.
The broad nature of 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' makes it difficult to assess the necessity and effectiveness of the spending.
Lack of domestic competition or clear justification for foreign award raises concerns about potential overpayment or suboptimal service.
The long contract duration without clear performance milestones could lead to complacency or reduced value over time.
Firm fixed-price contracts can be disadvantageous if the initial price is not well-justified or if scope creep occurs without adequate price adjustments.

Positive Signals

The 'Full and Open Competition' designation suggests an attempt to solicit a wide range of potential bidders.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the initial price was fair and reasonable.
The contract duration, while long, may indicate a stable, ongoing need for these management consulting services.
The award to foreign entities might suggest access to unique expertise or capabilities not readily available domestically.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, often using them for strategic planning, organizational efficiency, and specialized project support. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered, but consulting contracts can range widely in cost depending on the complexity, duration, and expertise required. The award to foreign entities is less common for general management consulting, suggesting a potentially niche requirement or a specific strategic decision by the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by 'sb': false. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' further suggests that the focus was not on engaging the U.S. small business ecosystem. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans, so the impact on small businesses, either domestically or internationally, is unknown but presumed to be minimal as a prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a Department of Defense contract, it would likely fall under the purview of the Department of Defense Inspector General for audits and investigations. Transparency is limited by the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation, which obscures the specific entity responsible. Accountability would typically be managed through contract performance reviews and adherence to the firm fixed-price terms, but the effectiveness of these measures is not evident from the data.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Management and Consulting Services
Foreign Military Sales Support
Administrative Support Services
General Management Consulting Contracts
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Transparency in Awardee Identity
Potential for Suboptimal Value Due to Foreign Award
Difficulty in Performance Benchmarking
Extended Contract Duration Increases Risk Exposure
Ambiguous Service Description

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GY007C0004} MNTSCI PDS SERVICES FOR SIX MONTHS

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 $14.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-02-14. End: 2010-01-31.

What specific management consulting services were provided under this contract, and what were the key performance indicators (KPIs)?

The provided data classifies the services broadly as 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611). Specific details regarding the tasks performed, deliverables expected, or key performance indicators (KPIs) are not available in the summary data. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to assess the direct impact and effectiveness of the services rendered. Typically, such contracts would outline objectives related to organizational efficiency, strategic planning, process improvement, or operational support within the Department of the Army. Without defined KPIs, it's difficult to quantitatively measure the value derived from the $14.7 million expenditure.

Why was this contract awarded to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' instead of domestic U.S. companies, especially under 'Full and Open Competition'?

The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' under 'Full and Open Competition' suggests several possibilities. Firstly, foreign entities may possess unique expertise, technology, or access to specific markets or intelligence that domestic firms could not replicate. Secondly, the competition may have been structured in a way that inadvertently favored foreign bidders, perhaps due to specific requirements or international partnership agreements. Thirdly, it's possible that domestic firms did not bid, or those that did were not deemed as competitive on price, technical approach, or other evaluation factors. The term 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' itself implies a grouping of entities rather than a single named contractor, which further complicates understanding the rationale behind the award and suggests a potentially complex procurement strategy or a lack of readily identifiable prime contractors for the required services.

How does the average daily cost of this contract compare to similar management consulting contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

The contract's total value is approximately $14.7 million over 1082 days, equating to roughly $13,586 per day. Benchmarking this against similar Department of Defense (DoD) management consulting contracts is difficult without more granular data on the specific services provided and the level of expertise required. General management consulting rates can vary significantly. However, for a contract spanning over three years, this daily rate might be considered moderate to high, depending on whether it includes senior executive-level support, specialized analytical services, or extensive project management. Contracts for high-level strategic advice or complex program management often command higher daily rates. Without knowing the specific deliverables and the seniority of the consultants involved, a definitive comparison is speculative.

What is the track record of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' in performing similar government contracts?

The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' does not refer to a specific contractor with a discernible track record. Instead, it suggests that the award was made to one or more foreign entities that may not have previously held significant prime contracts with the U.S. government under this specific designation, or that the award was aggregated under a general category. Therefore, assessing a 'track record' for this specific awardee group is not feasible. Information on past performance would typically be evaluated during the procurement process, but this summary data does not provide insights into the specific performance history of the entities that received this particular contract. Future performance would be assessed based on the contract's execution.

Given the firm fixed-price nature and duration, what are the potential risks associated with cost overruns or scope creep?

With a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, the risk of cost overruns generally lies with the contractor, not the government. However, risks can still emerge. If the initial price was not adequately estimated or if unforeseen complexities arise that significantly increase the contractor's costs, the contractor might seek to reduce quality or service levels to maintain profitability, potentially impacting the value received. Scope creep is a significant risk; if the government requires additional services beyond the original scope, a change order would be necessary, potentially leading to price adjustments. Without clear definitions of the scope and robust change control processes, even FFP contracts can lead to unexpected costs or diminished value if not managed diligently. The long duration (1082 days) increases the potential for scope changes or evolving requirements over time.

What oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure the effective delivery of administrative and management consulting services by foreign awardees?

The provided data does not detail the specific oversight mechanisms employed for this contract. However, standard government contracting practices would typically involve a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or a Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and verifying that services meet the required standards. For contracts involving foreign awardees, additional considerations might include security protocols, communication challenges, and adherence to international regulations. The Department of Defense Inspector General's office would also have jurisdiction for audits and investigations. The effectiveness of these mechanisms depends heavily on the diligence of the assigned government personnel and the clarity of the contract's performance expectations.

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, 22202

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,770,879

Exercised Options: $14,770,879

Current Obligation: $14,770,879

Contract Characteristics

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

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline