USAID's $85M Haiti agricultural development contract aimed to boost incomes and markets, with a 7-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $85,287,491 ($85.3M)

Contractor: DAI Global LLC

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2013-04-01

End Date: 2020-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,586 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF - THE PURPOSE OF THE U.S.-HAITI FEED THE FUTURE PARTNERSHIP: NORTHERN CORRIDOR (FTF NORTH) CONTRACT IS TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN HAITI S NORTHERN CORRIDOR BY ACHIEVING THE FOLLOWING RESULTS: 1) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED 2) WATERSHED STABILITY ABOVE SELECTED PLAINS IMPROVED 3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETS STRENGTHENED 4) CAPACITY OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS STRENGTHENED

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $85.3 million to DAI GLOBAL LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF - THE PURPOSE OF THE U.S.-HAITI FEED THE FUTURE PARTNERSHIP: NORTHERN CORRIDOR (FTF NORTH) CONTRACT IS TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN HAITI S NORTHERN CORRIDOR BY ACHIEVING THE FOLLOWING RESULTS: 1) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED 2) WATERSHED STABILITY ABOV… Key points: 1. The contract focused on increasing agricultural productivity and strengthening local organizations in Haiti's Northern Corridor. 2. It aimed to improve watershed stability and bolster agricultural market systems. 3. The contract was awarded to DAI Global LLC through full and open competition. 4. The contract type was a definitive contract with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee payment structure. 5. Performance spanned from April 2013 to April 2020, totaling 2,586 days. 6. The contract value was approximately $85.3 million, with a reported obligation of $33 million. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code was 561990, indicating support services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Assessing the value for money requires a deeper dive into the specific outcomes achieved against the $85.3 million investment. While the contract aimed to increase agricultural incomes and strengthen markets, the reported obligation of $33 million suggests that the full contract value may not have been expended or that this figure represents a portion of the total. Benchmarking against similar USAID agricultural development contracts in comparable regions would provide a clearer picture of cost-effectiveness. Without detailed performance metrics and impact assessments, it is difficult to definitively state if the pricing was competitive or if the value delivered was excellent.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple potential bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This process is generally expected to foster price discovery and encourage competitive pricing. The number of bidders (7) suggests a reasonable level of interest, though without knowing the pool of eligible contractors, it's hard to assess the intensity of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at competitive rates and reduces the risk of inflated costs due to a lack of alternatives.

Public Impact

Farmers and agricultural producers in Haiti's Northern Corridor are the primary beneficiaries, with the goal of increased incomes. The contract aimed to deliver services that enhance agricultural productivity, improve watershed management, and strengthen market systems. The geographic impact is focused on the Northern Corridor region of Haiti. Strengthening local organizations implies a focus on building local capacity and potentially creating or sustaining local employment within those organizations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The significant contract value raises questions about the efficiency of resource utilization over its 7-year duration.
The difference between the awarded amount and the reported obligation warrants further investigation into spending patterns and project completion.
Assessing the long-term sustainability of the 'increased agricultural incomes' and 'strengthened markets' requires post-contract evaluation.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a commitment to a fair and transparent procurement process.
The contract's focus on agricultural development and local capacity building aligns with common development aid objectives.
The multi-year duration indicates a commitment to achieving potentially complex, long-term development goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader sector of international development assistance, specifically focusing on agricultural development and economic growth in a developing nation. The market for such services involves international development firms, NGOs, and specialized consulting groups. The contract's value of $85.3 million positions it as a significant investment within this niche, comparable to other large-scale USAID or international donor-funded agricultural initiatives. The focus on specific results like productivity increases and market strengthening is typical for programs aiming for measurable impact.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract, nor does it detail subcontracting plans. As a large, definitive contract awarded through full and open competition, the primary focus was likely on large, experienced prime contractors. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors and what their role and impact were within the project's ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of USAID's Inspector General and relevant program officers. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance work statement, requiring regular reporting on key performance indicators and deliverables. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting requirements for federal spending, though detailed programmatic insights may be limited.

Related Government Programs

USAID Feed the Future Initiative
Haiti Development Assistance
International Agricultural Development Programs
Economic Growth and Trade Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure.
Dependency on stable political and economic conditions in Haiti for project success.
Risk of natural disasters impacting agricultural activities and project timelines.
Challenges in measuring and attributing long-term impact on agricultural incomes and market strengthening.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $85.3 million to DAI GLOBAL LLC. IGF::OT::IGF - THE PURPOSE OF THE U.S.-HAITI FEED THE FUTURE PARTNERSHIP: NORTHERN CORRIDOR (FTF NORTH) CONTRACT IS TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN HAITI S NORTHERN CORRIDOR BY ACHIEVING THE FOLLOWING RESULTS: 1) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED 2) WATERSHED STABILITY ABOVE SELECTED PLAINS IMPROVED 3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETS STRENGTHENED 4) CAPACITY OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS STRENGTHENED

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DAI GLOBAL LLC.

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 $85.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-04-01. End: 2020-04-30.

What specific agricultural productivity gains were achieved, and how were they measured?

The contract aimed to increase agricultural productivity, but the provided data does not specify the metrics used for measurement or the quantitative results achieved. Typically, such contracts would track indicators like yield per hectare for specific crops, adoption rates of improved farming techniques, or increased use of quality inputs. A detailed review of project reports and performance evaluations would be necessary to ascertain the specific gains and the methodologies employed to measure them. Without this, it's difficult to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in boosting productivity.

How did the 'strengthened agricultural markets' component translate into tangible benefits for farmers?

The concept of 'strengthened agricultural markets' can encompass various interventions, such as improving access to buyers, enhancing post-harvest storage and processing, developing market information systems, or facilitating farmer-to-farmer linkages. The tangible benefits for farmers could include higher prices received for their produce, reduced post-harvest losses, increased market access to larger buyers, or greater price stability. To evaluate this component, one would need to examine project documentation detailing market infrastructure improvements, value chain analyses conducted, and farmer surveys assessing changes in their market participation and profitability.

What was the role and capacity of the 'local organizations' that were strengthened?

The contract aimed to strengthen the capacity of local organizations, which could include farmer cooperatives, local NGOs, or community-based associations. Strengthening capacity might involve providing technical assistance, training in financial management, governance support, or helping them access resources and networks. The role of these organizations would likely be crucial in the sustainable implementation and long-term impact of the project's activities within Haiti's Northern Corridor. Understanding their pre-contract capabilities and the specific improvements achieved through the contract is key to assessing this aspect.

Can the value for money be assessed given the difference between awarded and obligated amounts?

The difference between the awarded amount ($85.3M) and the obligated amount ($33M) presents a challenge in assessing value for money based solely on the provided data. It suggests that either the full contract value was not needed to achieve the objectives, or that the obligated amount represents a specific phase or funding allocation. To truly assess value for money, one would need to understand the project's total expenditure, the specific outputs and outcomes achieved for that expenditure, and compare this to benchmarks for similar development projects. A lower obligated amount than awarded isn't inherently negative, but it necessitates a clearer understanding of the project's financial execution and impact achieved per dollar spent.

What were the primary risks identified during the contract's performance, and how were they mitigated?

Development projects in challenging environments like Haiti often face risks related to political instability, security concerns, natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes), agricultural pests and diseases, market volatility, and the capacity of local partners. Mitigation strategies could include contingency planning, security protocols, diversified agricultural approaches, flexible programming to adapt to changing conditions, and robust monitoring and evaluation systems. A thorough risk assessment would require reviewing the contract's risk management plan, any incident reports, and the project's adaptive management strategies throughout its lifecycle.

How does this contract's spending compare to other USAID agricultural initiatives in similar regions?

Comparing this $85.3 million contract to other USAID agricultural initiatives requires identifying comparable projects based on geography (e.g., other Caribbean nations, similar economic contexts), sector focus (e.g., crop value chains, market systems development, climate-smart agriculture), and duration. Benchmarking would involve looking at the average cost per beneficiary, cost per unit of outcome achieved (e.g., cost per ton of increased yield, cost per dollar of increased income), and overall program efficiency metrics. Without access to a database of comparable project costs and performance data, such a comparison remains qualitative, but it is a crucial step for a comprehensive value-for-money assessment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Other Support Services › All Other Support Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: SOL-521-12-000021

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7600 WISCONSIN AVE STE 200, BETHESDA, MD, 20814

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $85,287,491

Exercised Options: $85,287,491

Current Obligation: $85,287,491

Actual Outlays: $6,136,044

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 68

Total Subaward Amount: $10,802,177

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline