Department of the Army awarded $24.8M for living containers, with a significant portion going to foreign awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,801,370 ($24.8M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-13

End Date: 2008-04-02

Contract Duration: 325 days

Daily Burn Rate: $76.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GY007C0032} LIVING CONTAINERS FOR NP AT SAMARRA

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY007C0032} LIVING CONTAINERS FOR NP AT SAMARRA Key points: 1. The contract's value of $24.8 million for administrative management and general management consulting services is substantial. 2. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' raises questions about the distribution of funds and potential impact on domestic businesses. 3. The contract duration of 325 days suggests a focused, short-term need for these services. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the time of award, transferring some risk to the contractor. 5. The absence of small business set-asides suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to support small businesses. 6. The contract falls under Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, a broad category that requires further detail to assess specific value.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the 'living containers' and the consulting services provided. The total award of $24.8 million is a significant sum for a contract with a duration of 325 days. However, without comparable contracts for similar specialized 'living containers' or detailed service breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a negotiated price, but the lack of transparency on the cost components makes a precise value assessment difficult.

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 bids. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this procurement method generally aims to foster competition. However, the ultimate award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' might suggest that domestic firms did not submit competitive bids or that foreign entities offered a more advantageous proposal, which warrants further investigation into the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a wide range of offers. However, the award to foreign entities could mean that taxpayer funds are not directly benefiting the domestic economy through job creation or investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the foreign awardees who received the contract funds. The services delivered relate to 'living containers' and administrative/management consulting, potentially supporting logistical or operational needs at Samarra. The geographic impact is concentrated at Samarra, likely a military installation or operational area. Workforce implications are unclear but could involve personnel from the foreign awardee companies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' raises concerns about the intended beneficiaries of federal funds and potential impact on domestic industry.
Lack of specific details on 'living containers' and consulting services makes it difficult to assess the true value and necessity of the expenditure.
The broad NAICS code (541611) for Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services lacks specificity for this particular contract.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a full and open competition, suggesting an effort to obtain competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type can provide cost certainty for the government, assuming the contractor can manage their costs effectively.
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense, indicating a potentially critical operational need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services sector (NAICS 541611). This is a broad category encompassing a wide range of advisory and assistance services. The total federal spending in this sector can be substantial, with many contracts awarded annually. The specific nature of 'living containers' suggests a specialized niche within logistics or base support services, which may not be directly comparable to general management consulting.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific requirement, as 'sb' is false and 'st' (small business type) is empty. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting plans. This suggests that the procurement was not designed to specifically benefit small businesses, and their involvement is unlikely unless they were part of a larger foreign awardee team.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The firm fixed-price nature implies that the contractor bears the primary responsibility for cost control. Transparency regarding the specific deliverables and performance metrics would be crucial for effective oversight. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Logistics Support Contracts
Base Operations Support Contracts
Foreign Military Sales Support
Administrative and Management Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Award to foreign entities may warrant scrutiny regarding domestic economic impact.
Lack of specificity in contract description hinders value assessment.
Potential for uncompetitive pricing if foreign awardees lack robust oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.8 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GY007C0032} LIVING CONTAINERS FOR NP AT SAMARRA

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 $24.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-13. End: 2008-04-02.

What specific type of 'living containers' were procured, and what were their intended use and specifications?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the 'living containers.' This term could refer to temporary housing units, specialized shelters, or modular living spaces. Without further details, it is impossible to ascertain their specifications, intended use (e.g., for personnel, equipment), or the specific problem they were meant to solve at the Samarra location. This lack of specificity hinders a thorough assessment of the contract's necessity and value. Further investigation would require accessing the contract's statement of work or related documentation to understand the technical requirements and the rationale behind procuring these specific items.

What is the rationale behind awarding a significant portion of this contract to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' for $24.8 million raises questions about the competitive process and the strategic objectives of the Department of the Army. It is possible that foreign entities possessed unique capabilities, offered more competitive pricing, or were strategically positioned to fulfill the requirement in the Samarra region. However, without detailed information on the bidding process and the specific entities involved, it is difficult to determine if this award maximized value for U.S. taxpayers or if domestic capabilities were overlooked. Further analysis would be needed to understand the specific circumstances that led to this award decision and its implications for U.S. industry.

How does the cost of these 'living containers' and associated services compare to market rates or similar government procurements?

Benchmarking the cost of this contract is challenging due to the lack of specific details regarding the 'living containers' and the consulting services. The total award of $24.8 million over 325 days, with a firm fixed-price structure, provides a headline figure but lacks granular cost data. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify comparable procurements for similar types of temporary or modular living structures and associated logistical or management support. Additionally, understanding the specific services rendered under 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' is crucial. Without this context, assessing whether the price represents good value for money or is inflated compared to market rates is not feasible.

What performance metrics or deliverables were established for this contract, and how was contractor performance evaluated?

The provided data does not include information on the specific performance metrics, deliverables, or evaluation criteria for this contract. For a firm fixed-price contract, the contractor is typically responsible for meeting defined requirements within the agreed-upon price. However, effective oversight necessitates clear performance standards and a robust evaluation process to ensure the government receives the intended value. Without access to the contract's statement of work, quality assurance surveillance plans, or performance reports, it is impossible to assess how contractor performance was monitored and whether the objectives of the contract were successfully met.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'living containers' or similar logistical support services by the Department of the Army in the region?

The provided data is for a single contract (W91GY007C0032) and does not offer historical spending patterns. To understand the historical context, one would need to analyze past contracts awarded by the Department of the Army, or potentially other branches of the DoD, for similar 'living containers,' base support, or logistical services, particularly in the Middle East or specific operational areas like Samarra. Examining trends in contract values, durations, awardees, and competition levels over several fiscal years would reveal whether this $24.8 million award is an outlier, an increase, or consistent with previous spending. This analysis is crucial for identifying potential shifts in requirements or procurement strategies.

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: $24,801,370

Exercised Options: $24,801,370

Current Obligation: $24,801,370

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline