USAID's $228M Electric Power Distribution contract awarded to undisclosed domestic firms, lacking competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $228,142,122 ($228.1M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2010-12-04

End Date: 2015-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,822 days

Daily Burn Rate: $125.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Energy

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $228.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant investment in electric power distribution infrastructure overseas. 2. Contract awarded without open competition, raising questions about price discovery. 3. Long duration of 1822 days suggests a substantial, ongoing project. 4. Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type may incentivize cost escalation. 5. Lack of disclosed awardees makes direct benchmarking difficult. 6. Focus on overseas development aligns with USAID's mission.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of over $228 million for electric power distribution is substantial. However, without disclosed awardees or a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, while common for complex projects, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. The lack of transparency in awardee selection prevents a direct comparison to similar contracts or market rates.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, indicating a sole-source or limited competition procurement. The specific justification for not competing the award is not provided in the data. A lack of competition typically leads to less favorable pricing for the government and can limit the pool of innovative solutions. It is unclear how many potential bidders were considered or why other qualified firms were excluded.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of a competitive process means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for the services rendered. This can result in higher overall program costs and less efficient allocation of public funds.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include populations in overseas regions receiving improved electric power infrastructure. Services delivered encompass the development and maintenance of electric power distribution networks. Geographic impact is focused on specific international locations where USAID operates. Workforce implications include potential job creation for domestic and local labor involved in project execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Undisclosed awardees obscure potential contractor performance issues or conflicts of interest.
Long contract duration could mask inefficiencies if not closely monitored.

Positive Signals

Addresses critical infrastructure needs in developing regions.
Potential for positive long-term economic and social impact through reliable power access.
USAID's involvement suggests alignment with strategic foreign policy and development goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the energy sector, specifically focusing on electric power distribution infrastructure. The global market for energy infrastructure development is vast, with significant investment required for grid modernization and expansion, particularly in developing nations. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific geographic region and the scope of work. However, large-scale power distribution projects often run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award (sb: false). There is no information on subcontracting plans or set-asides for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee(s) are likely larger corporations, and the contract may not directly benefit the small business ecosystem through prime contracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Given the large dollar amount and overseas nature, it is likely subject to USAID's internal oversight, potentially including Inspector General audits. Transparency is limited due to the lack of disclosed awardees and the non-competitive nature of the award. Accountability would depend on the specific performance metrics and reporting requirements stipulated in the contract, which are not available here.

Related Government Programs

USAID Development Assistance
Infrastructure Development Programs
Global Energy Security Initiatives
Foreign Aid and Reconstruction Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Undisclosed Awardees
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contract Type
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $228.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

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 $228.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-12-04. End: 2015-11-30.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' but does not offer the specific justification. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source is available, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. For a contract of this magnitude and duration related to electric power distribution, justifications might include unique technical capabilities, existing infrastructure integration requirements, or national security interests. Without further documentation from the Agency for International Development (USAID), the precise rationale remains unknown, which is a significant transparency gap.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar projects, and what are the associated risks?

Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used for research and development or complex projects where the scope is not well-defined, allowing flexibility. However, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to increase the base for their fee. For electric power distribution projects, if the scope is well-defined, a firm-fixed-price contract might offer better value. The CPFF structure here necessitates robust oversight from USAID to control costs and ensure efficiency.

What performance metrics or milestones were established for this contract, and how was performance monitored?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics, milestones, or details on how the contractor's performance was monitored. For a contract valued at over $228 million and spanning 1822 days, effective performance management is crucial. Key performance indicators (KPIs) would typically relate to project completion timelines, quality of infrastructure installed, adherence to budget, safety standards, and the reliability of the power distribution systems established. Without this information, assessing the contract's success and the contractor's effectiveness is impossible.

Given the undisclosed awardees, what is the potential impact on contractor accountability and future bidding opportunities?

The anonymity of the awardees significantly hampers accountability. It prevents public scrutiny of the contractors' track records, financial stability, and past performance on similar projects. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for taxpayers and oversight bodies to assess whether the funds were well-spent or if the contractors were capable. Furthermore, it obscures whether the selection process favored specific entities without clear justification, potentially disadvantaging other qualified firms and limiting future competition if past performance cannot be publicly verified or challenged.

What is the historical spending pattern for electric power distribution contracts by USAID, and how does this contract compare?

The provided data only contains information for this single contract, making it impossible to establish a historical spending pattern for electric power distribution contracts by USAID. To conduct such an analysis, one would need access to historical contract databases, filtering for USAID awards within the 'Electric Power Distribution' (PSC code likely related to power generation, transmission, and distribution) category over several fiscal years. Comparing this $228 million contract would involve looking at the average award value, the number of contracts awarded annually, and the typical contract types and competition levels for similar projects.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $228,142,122

Exercised Options: $228,142,122

Current Obligation: $228,142,122

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline