DoD's $28.7M Kabul Barracks Project: Construction Completed in 2010, Raising Questions on Long-Term Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,749,705 ($28.7M)

Contractor: WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-03-02

End Date: 2010-07-30

Contract Duration: 1,246 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PHASE II STUDENT BARRACKS KABUL

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.7 million to WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. for work described as: PHASE II STUDENT BARRACKS KABUL Key points: 1. The contract was awarded for commercial and institutional building construction, indicating a focus on infrastructure development. 2. With a duration of 1246 days, the project spanned over three years, suggesting potential for schedule overruns or complex execution. 3. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as contractor incentives are less tied to cost savings. 4. The absence of small business set-asides suggests the primary contractor was likely a large firm, with potential implications for broader economic impact. 5. The project's completion in 2010, nearly a decade before current analysis, makes direct value-for-money assessments challenging without updated performance data. 6. The geographic location in Kabul, Afghanistan, introduces significant geopolitical and logistical risks inherent to the operating environment. 7. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process was intended.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Assessing the value-for-money for this contract is difficult due to its completion date and the inherent risks associated with operating in Afghanistan. While awarded under full and open competition, the CPFF structure requires careful oversight to ensure costs remained reasonable. Without post-completion performance data or current asset condition reports, it's hard to definitively state if the final cost represented good value. The long duration also suggests potential for cost escalation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. The presence of 9 bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment, which should theoretically drive down prices and improve value. However, the specific details of the bidding process and the winning bid's relation to others are not provided, making a full assessment of price discovery difficult.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower prices and better terms. The fact that 9 entities bid on this project suggests that the government had options, potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome than a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries were the U.S. Department of Defense, which received the constructed barracks. The project delivered essential infrastructure (student barracks) likely intended to support military operations or training in Afghanistan. The geographic impact was concentrated in Kabul, Afghanistan, a high-risk operational environment. Workforce implications would include construction jobs for both the prime contractor and any subcontractors, potentially including local labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Geopolitical instability in Afghanistan poses significant risks to project execution and long-term asset viability.
The CPFF contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
The long project duration increases the likelihood of unforeseen challenges and cost increases.
Lack of post-completion performance data makes it difficult to assess the quality and lasting value of the construction.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with multiple bidders, indicating a potentially robust selection process.
The contract aimed to deliver critical infrastructure, addressing a specific military need.
The project was completed, fulfilling the primary objective of construction.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant part of the broader construction industry. The market for such services, especially in overseas contingency operations, is often characterized by specialized firms capable of operating in challenging environments. Benchmarking this specific project is difficult without comparable data from similar construction efforts in Afghanistan during the same period, considering the unique risks and logistical demands.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the 'sb' field is false. This suggests that the primary contract was likely awarded to a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans or performance, so the impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large prime contracts often involve subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers and potentially the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), given the location and nature of the work. Transparency would depend on the public availability of contract performance reports and financial data, which may be limited for overseas operations. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract terms and the oversight bodies' ability to enforce them.

Related Government Programs

Afghanistan Infrastructure Projects
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Overseas Contingency Operations Spending
WSP USA Contracts

Risk Flags

High-Risk Operating Environment
Contract Type (CPFF) Potential for Cost Growth
Long Project Duration
Limited Post-Completion Performance Data
Geopolitical Instability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.7 million to WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC.. PHASE II STUDENT BARRACKS KABUL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE 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 $28.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-02. End: 2010-07-30.

What was the track record of WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. with DoD contracts prior to and following this award?

WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc., and its predecessors, have a substantial history of contracting with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Prior to this 2007 award, the company (or its acquired entities) likely had experience in engineering, construction, and environmental services. Following the 2010 completion of the Kabul barracks project, WSP has continued to secure numerous contracts across various federal departments, often in areas like infrastructure design, environmental remediation, and program management. Their extensive portfolio suggests a generally positive track record, though specific performance details on individual contracts, especially those in high-risk environments like Afghanistan, would require deeper investigation into contract performance reports and any associated claims or disputes.

How does the per-square-foot cost of these barracks compare to similar construction projects in similar environments?

Determining a precise per-square-foot cost comparison is challenging without detailed specifications of the barracks (e.g., size, amenities, quality of materials) and comparable project data from Kabul or similar high-risk operational zones during 2007-2010. Construction costs in Afghanistan were significantly inflated due to security, logistics, and specialized requirements. Standard commercial construction benchmarks are not applicable. The total award of $28.7 million for 'student barracks' implies a substantial facility, but without square footage or detailed cost breakdowns, a meaningful benchmark against other DoD overseas construction or even domestic projects is not feasible. The CPFF contract type also complicates direct cost comparisons, as it is less focused on fixed unit pricing.

What were the primary risks identified for this project, and how were they mitigated?

The primary risks for this project were undoubtedly related to the operating environment in Kabul, Afghanistan. These included security threats to personnel and equipment, logistical challenges in transporting materials and personnel, political instability, potential for corruption, and difficulties in workforce management (both local and expatriate). Mitigation strategies would have likely involved robust security protocols, detailed logistical planning, close coordination with military and diplomatic entities on the ground, adherence to strict compliance and anti-corruption measures, and potentially the use of specialized security and support contractors. The CPFF contract structure might have also influenced risk allocation between the government and the contractor.

What was the intended capacity and purpose of these student barracks, and how effectively did they serve that purpose post-construction?

The intended purpose of the 'student barracks' was to provide housing facilities, likely for military personnel, trainees, or students associated with U.S. or coalition forces operating in or near Kabul. The capacity would depend on the specific design, number of rooms, and occupancy per room. Assessing their effectiveness post-construction is difficult without specific data. Given the dynamic nature of military presence and operations in Afghanistan, the long-term utility and occupancy of these barracks would have been subject to changing mission requirements, force levels, and the eventual withdrawal of forces. It's possible their intended use evolved or ceased entirely depending on the strategic situation.

How did the $28.7 million expenditure align with overall DoD spending on infrastructure in Afghanistan during that period?

The $28.7 million expenditure for these barracks represents a fraction of the total U.S. military spending in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2010, which ran into the tens of billions annually. This period was characterized by a significant build-up of forces and associated infrastructure development. While $28.7 million is a substantial sum for a single project, it was likely one of many infrastructure investments aimed at supporting the mission. Comparable projects included larger bases, airfields, roads, and other facilities. Analyzing this specific contract's alignment requires context within the broader portfolio of reconstruction and infrastructure contracts managed by agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and other DoD entities operating in the region.

Were there any significant cost overruns or schedule delays associated with this contract, and if so, what were the reasons?

While the contract duration was 1246 days (approximately 3.4 years), which is substantial, it's difficult to definitively label it as 'delayed' without knowing the originally planned duration or baseline schedule. Similarly, for a CPFF contract, 'cost overruns' are relative to the initial estimate and the final negotiated fixed fee. Without access to detailed contract modification history, audit reports, or final cost settlements, it's impossible to confirm significant overruns or delays and their specific causes. Factors common in such environments (security incidents, logistical failures, scope changes) could have contributed if they occurred.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Amec PLC (UEI: 229533856)

Address: ONE PLYMOUTH MEETING STE 8, PLYMOUTH MEETI, PA

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,749,705

Exercised Options: $28,749,705

Current Obligation: $28,749,705

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA890306D8507

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline