Agency for International Development's $128.8M agriculture program aimed to boost rural economies in Afghanistan

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $128,770,882 ($128.8M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2006-11-01

End Date: 2011-10-30

Contract Duration: 1,824 days

Daily Burn Rate: $70.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF "ACCELERATED SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM (ASAP) IS TO ACCELERATE BROAD BASED, MARKET-LED AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CAPABLE OF RESPONDING AND ADAPTING TO MARKET FORCES IN THE WAY THAT PROVIDES NEW ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES TO RURAL AFGHANS.

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $128.8 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF "ACCELERATED SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM (ASAP) IS TO ACCELERATE BROAD BASED, MARKET-LED AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CAPABLE OF RESPONDING AND ADAPTING TO MARKET FORCES IN THE WAY THAT PROVIDES NEW ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES TO RURAL AFGHANS. Key points: 1. The contract focused on market-led agriculture development to create economic opportunities in rural Afghanistan. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors. 3. The contract duration was substantial, spanning over 5 years, indicating a long-term development objective. 4. The contract type was Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control while ensuring contractor effort. 5. The specific domestic awardees are undisclosed, limiting transparency on who executed the program. 6. The program's success would be measured by its ability to foster market-responsive and adaptive agricultural practices.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable international development contracts in similar volatile regions. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, while common, can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. The total obligated amount of $128.8 million over five years suggests a significant investment, but its true value depends entirely on the program's impact on Afghan rural economies and its sustainability.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that the agency sought proposals from all responsible sources. The number of bidders is not specified, but this approach generally promotes a wider range of potential solutions and can lead to more competitive pricing. However, the effectiveness of this competition in achieving optimal value is contingent on the specific evaluation criteria and the agency's ability to select the most capable and cost-effective offeror.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a fair market price by encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best terms.

Public Impact

Rural Afghan communities were the primary beneficiaries, with the program aiming to improve their livelihoods through agricultural development. The services delivered were intended to accelerate broad-based, market-led agriculture development, fostering new economic opportunities. The geographic impact was focused on rural areas within Afghanistan, a region often facing significant economic challenges. Workforce implications include potential job creation in the agricultural sector and related support services within Afghanistan.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific domestic awardees makes it difficult to assess contractor track record and performance.
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously monitored.
Measuring the 'market-led' success of agricultural development in a complex environment like Afghanistan presents significant challenges.
The long duration and substantial funding raise concerns about long-term sustainability and potential for dependency.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting an effort to find the best value and capability.
The program's objective to foster market-led development aligns with principles of economic self-sufficiency.
The focus on agriculture addresses a fundamental sector for economic development in many rural economies.
The substantial investment indicates a commitment to addressing significant development needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader sector of international development and economic assistance, specifically focusing on agriculture. The global market for agricultural development aid is substantial, with numerous organizations and governments investing in improving agricultural productivity and market access in developing nations. This contract represents a significant investment by the U.S. Agency for International Development in a critical sector for Afghanistan's economic stability and growth.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business participation, set-asides, or subcontracting plans is not provided in the available data. For a contract of this magnitude and nature, it is common for prime contractors to engage subcontractors, and there may be opportunities for small businesses. However, without specific details, the impact on the small business ecosystem remains unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, contracts of this size and scope managed by USAID would be subject to internal agency oversight, potentially including program reviews, financial audits, and performance monitoring. The Inspector General's office would likely have jurisdiction for investigating fraud, waste, and abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

USAID Afghanistan Mission Programs
International Agricultural Development Programs
Economic Growth and Trade Capacity Building Programs
Rule of Law and Governance Programs in Afghanistan

Risk Flags

Lack of transparency in awardee identification.
Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Challenges in measuring 'market-led' success in a complex environment.
Security and political instability risks in Afghanistan.
Long-term sustainability concerns for development interventions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $128.8 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). THE PURPOSE OF "ACCELERATED SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM (ASAP) IS TO ACCELERATE BROAD BASED, MARKET-LED AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CAPABLE OF RESPONDING AND ADAPTING TO MARKET FORCES IN THE WAY THAT PROVIDES NEW ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES TO RURAL AFGHANS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Agency for International Development (Agency for International Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $128.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-11-01. End: 2011-10-30.

What specific metrics were used to define and measure 'market-led agriculture development' success in this program?

The provided data does not specify the exact metrics used to define and measure success for the 'Accelerated Sustainable Agriculture Program (ASAP)'. Typically, such programs would track indicators related to increased crop yields, improved farmer incomes, enhanced market access (e.g., number of new market linkages established), adoption of new agricultural technologies or practices, and the overall growth of agricultural enterprises. Success in a 'market-led' approach would emphasize the program's role in facilitating private sector engagement and ensuring that agricultural activities are responsive to actual market demands rather than solely relying on direct aid or subsidies for sustainability.

Can the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure be considered advantageous or disadvantageous for a program of this nature?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure has both potential advantages and disadvantages for a program like ASAP. The 'cost-plus' element allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs incurred, which is beneficial in complex, long-term development projects where unforeseen challenges and costs are common, especially in environments like Afghanistan. The 'fixed fee' provides a predetermined profit margin, incentivizing the contractor to complete the work. However, CPFF contracts can incentivize cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs incurred. Effective oversight and robust cost controls by the agency are crucial to mitigate this risk and ensure value for money. For a program focused on market-led development, the flexibility offered by CPFF might be necessary to adapt to evolving market conditions and operational challenges.

What was the rationale for awarding this contract to 'undisclosed' domestic awardees, and what are the implications for transparency?

The data indicates 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', which is unusual for a contract of this magnitude and public funding. Typically, awardee information is publicly available through contract databases. The rationale for non-disclosure is not provided. Potential reasons could include security concerns in the operating environment, protection of proprietary business information, or administrative oversight. However, this lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public and oversight bodies to assess the qualifications, past performance, and potential conflicts of interest of the entities executing the program. It also hinders independent analysis of contractor selection and performance.

How does the $128.8 million investment compare to other international agricultural development programs funded by the U.S. government?

The $128.8 million obligated amount for the ASAP program over approximately five years represents a substantial investment. While direct comparisons require detailed analysis of specific program objectives, duration, and operating contexts, this figure is significant within the realm of U.S. international agricultural development aid. For instance, USAID and the Department of Agriculture fund numerous agricultural programs globally, with budgets varying widely based on country needs, program scope, and strategic priorities. Larger, multi-year programs in complex environments often reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This investment level suggests a high priority placed on agricultural development in Afghanistan during the contract period.

What are the potential risks associated with implementing a long-term (5-year) agriculture development program in Afghanistan?

Implementing a long-term agriculture development program in Afghanistan carries significant risks. These include political instability and security challenges, which can disrupt program activities, endanger personnel, and undermine progress. Economic risks involve market volatility, fluctuating commodity prices, and potential corruption. Operational risks include logistical difficulties in remote areas, limited infrastructure, and the challenge of building sustainable local capacity. Furthermore, the effectiveness of 'market-led' development can be hampered by weak local institutions, lack of access to finance for farmers, and unpredictable policy environments. The long duration also raises concerns about the sustainability of interventions once external funding ceases.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,109,086,933

Exercised Options: $2,109,086,933

Current Obligation: $128,770,882

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline