DoD's $10.9M Prison Expansion Contract Awarded to Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees in 2007

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,879,364 ($10.9M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-03-31

End Date: 2008-01-27

Contract Duration: 302 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GY107C0002} RUSAFA PRISON EXPANSION

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY107C0002} RUSAFA PRISON EXPANSION Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under a firm fixed-price structure, indicating a defined scope and cost. 2. Awarded in 2007, the contract's relevance to current operational needs requires further investigation. 3. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation suggests a broad category of contractors, potentially lacking specific performance history. 4. The contract duration of 302 days points to a relatively short-term project. 5. The administrative management and general management consulting services NAICS code indicates a focus on operational support rather than construction. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests it was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the broad 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' category and the age of the award (2007). Without specific details on the services rendered and comparable projects from that era, assessing value for money is difficult. The firm fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty, but the overall value proposition is unclear without more context on the project's objectives and outcomes.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. However, the specific number of bidders and the evaluation process are not detailed in the provided data. Full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries were likely the Department of Defense and its personnel requiring prison expansion services. The services delivered pertained to administrative management and general management consulting, not direct construction. The geographic impact is not specified but is presumed to be within a DoD facility. Workforce implications are not detailed but would involve personnel related to project management and consulting.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific contractor identification hinders assessment of past performance and reliability.
The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' category lacks transparency regarding the specific entities involved.
The age of the contract (2007) raises questions about its current relevance and the applicability of lessons learned.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under administrative management and general management consulting services, a broad category within the professional services sector. The market for such services is vast, encompassing support for various government functions. Benchmarking this specific award is difficult without knowing the precise nature of the 'prison expansion' consulting provided, but it represents a small fraction of overall federal spending on professional services.

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 or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Army's contracting officers and potentially the Inspector General's office, depending on the nature of any issues that arose. Transparency is limited by the general nature of the awardee category and the age of the data. Accountability would be tied to the firm fixed-price contract terms and performance requirements.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Contracts
Administrative Management Services
General Management Consulting Services
Foreign Military Sales Support
Prison System Management

Risk Flags

Lack of Specific Contractor Identification
Ambiguous Contract Description
Potential for Foreign Political/Economic Instability
Limited Performance Data Availability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.9 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GY107C0002} RUSAFA PRISON EXPANSION

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 $10.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-31. End: 2008-01-27.

What specific 'prison expansion' services were provided under this contract?

The provided data classifies this contract under NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services). The term 'prison expansion' in the description is ambiguous. It could refer to consulting services related to the planning, design, or management of prison facilities, rather than direct construction. Without further documentation or context from the Department of the Army, the precise nature of the services rendered remains unclear. It is possible the contract supported logistical, administrative, or operational aspects of expanding prison capacity, perhaps in a foreign deployment context given the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation.

What is the performance history of 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' in similar contracts?

The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' is a broad categorization and does not refer to a specific entity with a trackable performance history. This suggests that the award may have been made to a group of foreign entities or a prime contractor managing multiple foreign subcontractors. Assessing the performance history of such a broad category is inherently difficult. Typically, federal agencies would vet individual contractors. The lack of specific contractor identification makes it impossible to analyze past performance, reliability, or adherence to contract terms for this particular awardee group. This lack of specificity raises concerns about due diligence and contractor vetting.

How does the $10.9 million cost compare to similar prison-related consulting contracts awarded around 2007?

Comparing the $10.9 million cost of this contract to similar prison-related consulting contracts awarded around 2007 is challenging due to the limited information. The contract's description as 'prison expansion' under administrative and management consulting services is vague. If the contract involved strategic planning or high-level management consulting for a large-scale prison initiative, the cost might be within a reasonable range for a project of significant scope. However, without knowing the specific deliverables, the duration of the consulting engagement, and the geographic location (especially if it involved foreign operations), a direct comparison is speculative. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the value is contingent on the effectiveness of the consulting provided.

What risks are associated with awarding contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

Awarding contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' can introduce several risks. These include challenges in vetting contractor reliability and past performance, potential difficulties in enforcing contract terms and quality standards, and currency exchange rate fluctuations if payments are made in foreign currency. There can also be geopolitical risks, depending on the countries involved. Furthermore, ensuring compliance with U.S. federal procurement regulations and ethical standards can be more complex with foreign entities. The lack of specific identification for these awardees exacerbates these risks, making oversight and accountability more difficult for the contracting agency.

What was the strategic purpose of this 'prison expansion' contract for the Department of Defense in 2007?

In 2007, the Department of Defense (DoD) was involved in various overseas operations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which often required the management of detention facilities. This contract, awarded under 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' and categorized as administrative and management consulting for 'prison expansion,' likely supported the DoD's efforts in managing or expanding detention capacity in a contingency environment. The strategic purpose would have been to provide the necessary management and administrative expertise to support these operations, ensuring the facilities were functional and compliant with operational requirements, albeit under potentially challenging circumstances and with foreign partners.

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: $10,879,364

Exercised Options: $10,879,364

Current Obligation: $10,879,364

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline