Department of Defense awarded $25.5M for Rule of Law services to miscellaneous foreign awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,510,809 ($25.5M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-06-27

End Date: 2008-06-27

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 $25.5 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY007C0053} RULE OF LAW Key points: 1. The contract value of $25.5 million represents a significant investment in administrative management and general management consulting services. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a robust bidding process for these services. 3. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a specific need within their operational or strategic framework. 4. The service category, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, is broad and could encompass various support functions. 5. The fixed-firm price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 6. The duration of the contract appears to be a single day, which is unusual and warrants further investigation into the nature of the services provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the unusual single-day duration and the broad nature of 'Rule of Law' services. Without more specific details on the deliverables and the scope of work, it's difficult to assess if $25.5 million represents good value for money. Comparing it to similar, longer-term contracts for rule of law initiatives would be necessary for a more accurate assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which typically implies that multiple bidders were encouraged to participate. This suggests that the Department of the Army sought the best possible offer through a competitive process. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a competitive market rate, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely entities or individuals involved in the 'Rule of Law' initiatives supported by the Department of Defense, potentially in foreign regions. Services delivered fall under administrative management and general management consulting, aimed at strengthening legal and governance frameworks. The geographic impact is not specified but is likely tied to the specific 'Rule of Law' program's operational area. Workforce implications could involve the engagement of specialized consultants or support staff, both domestic and potentially foreign, depending on the contract's execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The single-day duration for a $25.5 million contract is highly unusual and raises questions about the nature of the service or potential data entry errors.
The broad categorization of 'Rule of Law' services makes it difficult to ascertain the specific activities and their effectiveness without further detail.
The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' lacks specificity and could obscure the identity of the actual service providers, potentially impacting accountability.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a commitment to a transparent and competitive procurement process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the Department of Defense.
The contract addresses a critical area of 'Rule of Law' which is often a component of broader national security and foreign policy objectives.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically administrative and management consulting. This sector is characterized by a wide range of specialized services supporting government operations and strategic initiatives. The market size for such services is substantial, with significant government spending allocated annually. This particular contract's focus on 'Rule of Law' suggests a niche within broader consulting, often related to international affairs, security cooperation, or stability operations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' further suggests that the primary recipients were not U.S. small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Army's contracting officers and program managers. Transparency is limited by the available data, particularly regarding the specific nature of the 'Rule of Law' services and the identity of the foreign awardees. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Financing
Security Cooperation Programs
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
Rule of Law Assistance Programs

Risk Flags

Unusual contract duration
Lack of specificity in awardee identification
Ambiguity in service scope

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.5 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 $25.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-06-27. End: 2008-06-27.

What specific 'Rule of Law' services were provided under this contract?

The provided data categorizes the contract under 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611) and mentions 'RULE OF LAW' as the description. However, it does not detail the specific services rendered. 'Rule of Law' initiatives can encompass a wide array of activities, including judicial reform, legal system capacity building, anti-corruption efforts, security sector reform, and legislative development. Without further documentation, the precise nature of the $25.5 million expenditure remains unclear. The unusual single-day duration (0 days) for the contract's period of performance (from 2008-06-27 to 2008-06-27) is particularly perplexing for a contract of this magnitude and suggests a potential data anomaly or a highly specialized, short-term advisory role.

How does the $25.5 million award compare to similar 'Rule of Law' contracts?

Direct comparison of the $25.5 million award is difficult without knowing the specific 'Rule of Law' services provided and the contract's duration. Contracts for rule of law assistance can vary significantly in scope and cost. Some may involve long-term capacity building over several years, while others might be for specific assessments or training events. The unusual single-day performance period indicated in the data (2008-06-27 to 2008-06-27) makes this contract an outlier. Typical rule of law programs often span multiple years and can range from a few million to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity and geographic focus. This contract's value, if accurate for its stated duration, would imply an extremely high intensity or a very specific, perhaps advisory, function.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a $25.5 million contract to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES'?

Awarding a significant sum like $25.5 million to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' presents several potential risks. Firstly, transparency and accountability can be diminished, as the specific identities and track records of these awardees are not readily apparent. This lack of clarity makes it harder to verify their qualifications, past performance, and adherence to ethical standards. Secondly, managing and overseeing the performance of multiple, potentially disparate foreign entities can be complex and resource-intensive for the Department of Defense. Ensuring compliance with U.S. regulations, contract terms, and desired outcomes becomes more challenging. Lastly, there could be risks related to currency fluctuations, differing legal frameworks, and potential political sensitivities depending on the countries involved.

What does the single-day contract duration imply for program effectiveness?

A contract duration of a single day (2008-06-27 to 2008-06-27) for a $25.5 million award is highly anomalous and raises significant questions about program effectiveness. It is improbable that substantial 'Rule of Law' services, typically involving complex, long-term initiatives like judicial reform or capacity building, could be effectively delivered or completed within a 24-hour period. This duration might suggest several possibilities: the data could be erroneous, the contract might represent a single, high-level advisory meeting or a critical, time-sensitive event, or it could be related to a specific milestone payment within a larger, unlinked program. If it truly represents the entire scope of work, it challenges conventional understanding of how such programs are implemented and measured for effectiveness.

How does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation impact the value for taxpayers?

The designation of 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' is generally a positive indicator for taxpayers. It signifies that the Department of the Army solicited bids from all responsible sources, allowing for a wide range of potential contractors to compete. This competitive environment typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award. It also increases the likelihood that the government will receive the best value, considering both price and technical qualifications. While the specific outcome for this contract isn't detailed, the process itself is designed to ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently and effectively by fostering a market-driven approach to procurement.

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: $25,510,809

Exercised Options: $25,510,809

Current Obligation: $25,510,809

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline