Department of Defense awarded $17.6M for water supply facilities construction in Iraq

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,598,985 ($17.6M)

Contractor: Toltest, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-07

End Date: 2009-10-26

Contract Duration: 1,145 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 20

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200612!001897!5700!FA8903!HSW/PKV !FA890306D8519 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20060907!20070331!047306055!047306055!047306055!N!TOLTEST, INC !1480 FORD ST !MAUMEE !OH!43537!00000! !IZ! ! !IRAQ !+000013399545!N!N!000000000000!Y245!WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !236220!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20110501!B! ! !A! !A!U!U!2!020!B! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.6 million to TOLTEST, INC. for work described as: 200612!001897!5700!FA8903!HSW/PKV !FA890306D8519 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20060907!20070331!047306055!047306055!047306055!N!TOLTEST, INC !1480 FORD ST !MAUMEE !OH!43537!00000! !IZ! ! … Key points: 1. Contract awarded for critical infrastructure development in a contingency environment. 2. Construction services were procured through full and open competition. 3. The contract utilized a cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure. 4. Performance period spanned over three years, indicating a substantial project. 5. The awardee has a track record with government contracts. 6. This contract falls under the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $17.6 million for water supply facilities construction in Iraq appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this nature and complexity in a contingency zone. However, without specific benchmarks for similar construction projects in Iraq during the 2006-2009 period, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure, while common for uncertain environments, can lead to higher costs than fixed-price contracts if not managed carefully. Further analysis would require detailed cost breakdowns and comparison to similar projects.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and considered. The presence of 20 bids suggests a competitive environment, which generally benefits the government by driving down prices and encouraging innovation. The specific number of bidders and the evaluation criteria would provide a clearer picture of the extent of competition and its impact on the final price.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best value through a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to lower overall costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel and local populations in Iraq requiring access to safe water supply facilities. The services delivered include the construction and potentially maintenance of water infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Iraq, specifically where the facilities were constructed. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs, both for U.S. contractors and potentially local labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize contractors to incur more costs, potentially increasing the final price.
Construction in contingency zones carries inherent risks related to security, logistics, and unforeseen site conditions, which can drive up costs.
The duration of the contract (over three years) suggests a complex project where scope creep or delays could impact the final cost.
Limited public information on the specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency.
The nature of the work in a conflict zone may have limited opportunities for small business subcontracting.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, indicating a clear point of accountability.
The project addresses a critical need for water supply infrastructure, contributing to stability and public health.
The contractor, TOLTEST, INC., has experience with government contracts, suggesting a level of familiarity with federal acquisition processes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on building and infrastructure development. The market for construction services in support of government operations, particularly in overseas contingency operations, is substantial. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other agencies in similar geographic or operational environments. The $17.6 million award is a significant but not extraordinary amount for a multi-year infrastructure project in a challenging location.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses. Given the scale and nature of the project (large-scale infrastructure in a contingency zone), it is less likely to have been a small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but without specific subcontracting plans or goals detailed in the award, their impact is uncertain. The primary awardee is a large business, and the focus is on delivering the primary construction services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Air Force. Inspector General (IG) investigations could be initiated if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is generally enhanced through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic information on contract value, awardee, and period of performance. However, detailed oversight reports or performance reviews are often not publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Contingency Contracting
Infrastructure Development
Water and Sanitation Projects
Department of Defense Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Contingency Operations Risk
Cost-Plus Contract Risk
Security Risk
Logistical Complexity

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.6 million to TOLTEST, INC.. 200612!001897!5700!FA8903!HSW/PKV !FA890306D8519 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20060907!20070331!047306055!047306055!047306055!N!TOLTEST, INC !1480 FORD ST !MAUMEE !OH!43537!00000! !IZ! ! !IRAQ !+000013399545!N!N!000000000000!Y245!WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !236220!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!201

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TOLTEST, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-07. End: 2009-10-26.

What is the track record of TOLTEST, INC. with federal contracts, particularly in construction and overseas operations?

TOLTEST, INC. has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily within the construction domain. Data indicates multiple awards, including those related to infrastructure development and facility construction. Their involvement in overseas operations, such as the project in Iraq, suggests experience navigating the complexities of working in contingency environments. While specific performance ratings for past contracts are not always publicly available, the continued awarding of contracts implies a satisfactory performance history. Further investigation into specific past projects, their values, and any reported issues would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their track record.

How does the $17.6 million award compare to similar water supply facility construction projects in Iraq during the mid-2000s?

Comparing the $17.6 million award for water supply facilities in Iraq to similar projects during the mid-2000s is challenging due to the unique nature of contingency contracting and the limited availability of directly comparable public data. Projects in conflict zones often incur higher costs due to security, logistical challenges, and specialized requirements. However, for large-scale infrastructure projects, this amount is substantial. Benchmarking would ideally involve analyzing other DoD contracts for similar facilities in Iraq or Afghanistan during the same period, considering factors like project scope, duration, and specific risks. Without such detailed comparative data, assessing the precise value-for-money is difficult, but the award reflects the significant investment required for such critical infrastructure in that environment.

What were the primary risks associated with this construction contract in Iraq, and how were they mitigated?

Construction projects in Iraq during the 2006-2009 period faced significant risks, including security threats to personnel and equipment, logistical challenges in delivering materials and personnel, potential for political instability impacting project continuity, and unforeseen site conditions. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure suggests an acknowledgment of these uncertainties, allowing for cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee, which can accommodate fluctuating costs. Mitigation strategies likely included robust security protocols, detailed logistical planning, close coordination with military and local authorities, and contingency planning for delays or disruptions. Specific risk mitigation plans are typically internal to the contracting agency and not publicly disclosed.

What was the effectiveness of the competition process in ensuring a fair price for taxpayers?

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' with 20 bids received. This level of competition is generally considered robust and is designed to ensure that the government receives competitive pricing. A higher number of bids typically correlates with better price discovery and a greater likelihood of securing a fair market price. While the specific details of the bidding and evaluation process are not public, the competitive nature of the procurement suggests that taxpayers benefited from multiple firms vying for the contract, driving down the offered prices compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

What is the historical spending pattern for water supply facilities construction by the Department of Defense in similar regions?

Historical spending patterns for water supply facilities construction by the Department of Defense in similar regions, particularly in overseas contingency operations, show a consistent need for such infrastructure. While specific figures for 'water supply facilities' as a distinct category can be difficult to isolate across all DoD spending, significant investments are made in base infrastructure, force protection, and quality-of-life improvements in operational theaters. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, has historically included substantial allocations for construction projects, encompassing everything from barracks and dining facilities to critical utilities like water and power. The $17.6 million for this specific project aligns with the scale of infrastructure investments required to support military operations and stabilization efforts in complex environments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 20

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lakeshore Toltest Corporation (UEI: 962400151)

Address: 1480 FORD ST, MAUMEE, OH, 43537

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA890306D8519

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline