Department of Defense awarded $372M for Rule of Law services, primarily to foreign entities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $372,404,395 ($372.4M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-01

End Date: 2008-04-26

Contract Duration: 300 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.2M/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GY007C0053} RULE OF LAW

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $372.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY007C0053} RULE OF LAW Key points: 1. Contract value significantly exceeds typical consulting service awards. 2. Limited transparency into the specific services rendered for the substantial cost. 3. High concentration of foreign awardees raises questions about domestic economic impact. 4. Long duration of the contract suggests a sustained need for these services. 5. Firm Fixed Price contract type offers cost certainty but may limit flexibility. 6. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' category lacks specificity regarding contractor types.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of over $372 million is exceptionally high for administrative management and general management consulting services. Benchmarking this against similar contracts is difficult due to the broad service category and the unusual focus on 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees.' The firm fixed-price nature provides cost predictability, but the sheer scale of the award warrants scrutiny regarding the value delivered for such a significant investment, especially when compared to the typical cost of consulting services.

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 outcome resulted in awards primarily to foreign entities, which is an unusual distribution for a U.S. Department of Defense contract. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria are not detailed, making it challenging to assess if the competition effectively drove down prices or ensured the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers, the concentration of awards to foreign entities in this case may mean that a smaller portion of the taxpayer funds directly benefited the U.S. economy through domestic contractor engagement.

Public Impact

Foreign entities and potentially foreign governments are the primary beneficiaries of this contract. Services likely involve advising on or supporting the implementation of legal frameworks and governance structures in foreign regions. The geographic impact is concentrated in areas where the Department of Defense is engaged in rule of law initiatives. Workforce implications are primarily for personnel employed by the foreign awardees, with limited direct impact on the U.S. federal workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed service descriptions makes it difficult to assess performance and value.
High concentration of foreign awardees raises concerns about accountability and oversight.
The significant dollar amount awarded warrants deeper investigation into cost-effectiveness.
The broad 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' category obscures the specific entities receiving funds.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a procedural adherence to competitive principles.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides budget certainty for the government.
The contract addresses a critical area of foreign policy and national security: the rule of law.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. The market for rule of law and governance consulting is often specialized, involving international law, public administration, and security sector reform. While specific market size data for 'rule of law' consulting is scarce, the Department of Defense's engagement in such activities globally represents a significant area of federal spending, often in complex geopolitical environments.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). Given the large contract value and the nature of the services, it is unlikely that small businesses were primary awardees. Subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses are not explicitly detailed but would depend on the prime foreign awardees' procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for a contract of this magnitude, especially with foreign awardees, would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers and potentially Inspector General's office. However, the lack of detailed service descriptions and the foreign nature of the recipients could complicate direct oversight and accountability. Transparency is limited by the aggregated reporting of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees.'

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Financing
Security Cooperation Programs
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
USAID Development Assistance

Risk Flags

High contract value for consulting services.
Concentration of awards to foreign entities.
Lack of specific service details.
Broad awardee category ('Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees').

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $372.4 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GY007C0053} RULE OF LAW

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 $372.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-01. End: 2008-04-26.

What specific rule of law programs or initiatives did this contract support?

The provided data does not specify the exact rule of law programs or initiatives supported by this contract. The description 'RULE OF LAW' is broad and could encompass a wide range of activities, such as judicial reform, police training, legislative development, anti-corruption efforts, or transitional justice mechanisms in post-conflict or developing regions. Without further details on the Statement of Work (SOW) or task orders issued under this contract, it is impossible to determine the precise nature of the services rendered. The significant funding suggests substantial, long-term engagements rather than short-term advisory roles.

How does the $372 million award compare to typical spending on rule of law initiatives by the Department of Defense?

The $372 million award is substantial and likely represents a significant portion of the Department of Defense's (DoD) spending on rule of law initiatives for the period it covers. While DoD's overall budget is vast, specific allocations for rule of law programs can fluctuate based on global security priorities and geopolitical events. Benchmarking this single contract against the entirety of DoD's rule of law spending is challenging without access to detailed budget breakdowns. However, the magnitude suggests this contract was either a major program or a consolidation of multiple significant efforts, potentially indicating a high-priority area for the agency during the contract's performance period.

What are the risks associated with awarding a contract of this size primarily to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude primarily to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' presents several risks. Firstly, there is a potential for reduced oversight and accountability, as monitoring performance and ensuring compliance can be more complex with entities operating outside the U.S. legal and regulatory framework. Secondly, it raises concerns about the effective use of taxpayer funds if the services procured could have been obtained domestically at a comparable or better value, or if the funds do not contribute to the U.S. economy. Thirdly, there's a risk related to the specific capabilities and reliability of these foreign entities, especially if they are not well-vetted or lack a proven track record in the specific context of U.S. national security objectives. Finally, the lack of specificity in the awardee category hinders transparency and public understanding of where funds are directed.

What does the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation imply about the competition and selection process?

The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' suggests that the competition, while officially 'full and open,' resulted in contracts being awarded to a variety of foreign entities that did not fit into more specific pre-defined categories. This could imply that the scope of work was broad or specialized, attracting international expertise. It might also indicate that U.S. domestic contractors were either less competitive on price or lacked the specific niche capabilities required for these particular rule of law initiatives. However, the lack of detail within this category makes it difficult to ascertain if the competition was truly robust or if there were other factors influencing the award distribution, such as specific regional requirements or existing international partnerships.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Rule of Law' services by the Department of the Army?

The provided data pertains to a single contract (W91GY007C0053) awarded by the Department of the Army with a start date of July 1, 2007, and an end date of April 26, 2008. This contract alone represents a significant outlay of over $372 million for 'Rule of Law' services. To establish a historical spending pattern, one would need to analyze multiple contracts over several fiscal years, looking at the total obligated amounts, the number of contracts awarded, the types of services procured (e.g., training, advisory, infrastructure), and the primary awardees (domestic vs. foreign). This single data point indicates a substantial investment during that specific period but does not provide a trend or pattern on its own.

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: $372,404,395

Exercised Options: $372,404,395

Current Obligation: $372,404,395

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline