USAID's $80M Indoor Residual Spraying Project in Uganda awarded to ABT Global LLC for technical services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $79,804,387 ($79.8M)

Contractor: ABT Global LLC

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2012-06-26

End Date: 2017-12-31

Contract Duration: 2,014 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: USAID/UGANDA INDOOR RESIDUAL SPRAYING PROJECT - PHASE II ACTIVITY

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $79.8 million to ABT GLOBAL LLC for work described as: USAID/UGANDA INDOOR RESIDUAL SPRAYING PROJECT - PHASE II ACTIVITY Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivizes performance but requires careful monitoring of award fee criteria. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a robust market for these services. 3. The contract duration of over five years indicates a significant, long-term commitment. 4. The professional, scientific, and technical services category is broad, requiring specific performance metrics for evaluation. 5. The contract was awarded as a definitive contract, providing a clear framework for service delivery. 6. The project's focus on indoor residual spraying implies a public health objective, likely related to disease vector control.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance data and award fee payouts. The cost-plus-award-fee (CPAFF) structure allows for cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee that is adjusted based on performance. While this can drive efficiency, it also introduces potential for cost overruns if not managed tightly. Comparing it to similar public health or technical service contracts would require detailed analysis of scope and deliverables.

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 likely vied for this opportunity. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing. The presence of multiple bidders suggests a healthy market for the specialized services required for this project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically leads to better value for taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the population of Uganda, through improved public health outcomes from disease vector control. Services delivered include technical expertise and project management for indoor residual spraying activities. The geographic impact is focused on Uganda, with potential for broader regional benefits if disease transmission is reduced. Workforce implications may include local employment opportunities for spraying teams and support staff, managed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep in a cost-plus-award-fee contract if performance metrics are not rigorously defined and monitored.
Ensuring effective disease vector control requires precise execution and monitoring of spraying activities.
Dependency on contractor performance for achieving public health objectives.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a competitive environment that can drive efficiency.
The definitive contract award type provides a clear structure for service delivery.
The project's focus on public health aligns with development goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically related to public health initiatives. The market for such services is driven by government funding for international development and health programs. Comparable spending might be found in other USAID-funded health projects or similar international health initiatives by other agencies, though direct dollar-for-dollar comparisons are difficult due to project specificity.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether ABT Global LLC utilizes small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by USAID's contracting officers and program officers, with potential involvement from USAID's Office of Inspector General. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards and award fee criteria outlined in the contract. Transparency would depend on USAID's reporting practices for this specific project.

Related Government Programs

USAID Global Health Security Agenda
President's Malaria Initiative
International Health Programs
Vector Control Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns in CPAF contracts.
Effectiveness dependent on contractor's operational execution.
Public health outcomes tied to successful implementation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $79.8 million to ABT GLOBAL LLC. USAID/UGANDA INDOOR RESIDUAL SPRAYING PROJECT - PHASE II ACTIVITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ABT 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 $79.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-06-26. End: 2017-12-31.

What specific performance metrics were used to determine the award fee for ABT Global LLC?

The provided data does not specify the exact performance metrics used for the award fee determination. Typically, for a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract like this, metrics would be tied to project milestones, efficiency targets, quality of service delivery, adherence to budget, and timely reporting. USAID would have established a Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP) detailing these criteria and the associated scoring or rating system. Without access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and the PEP, a precise answer is not possible. However, for an indoor residual spraying project, metrics could include the number of households sprayed, the quality of spray application, community engagement levels, and adherence to safety protocols.

How does the total contract value of approximately $80 million compare to similar indoor residual spraying projects funded by USAID or other agencies?

Comparing the $80 million contract value requires context regarding the project's scope, duration, and geographic coverage. This contract spanned over five years (June 2012 - December 2017), averaging roughly $16 million per year. USAID funds numerous health and development projects, and large-scale public health interventions like vector control can indeed reach tens of millions of dollars. For instance, the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), which often includes IRS activities, has historically managed substantial budgets. To make a direct comparison, one would need to identify projects with similar objectives (IRS), similar geographic scale (national or sub-national within a country), and similar duration. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state if $80 million is high or low, but it represents a significant investment in public health infrastructure and disease prevention.

What are the primary risks associated with implementing a large-scale indoor residual spraying project in Uganda, and how might they be mitigated?

Key risks include logistical challenges in reaching remote populations, potential for community resistance or lack of cooperation, ensuring the quality and efficacy of the insecticide used, environmental concerns related to pesticide application, and security issues in certain regions. Mitigation strategies would involve robust community engagement and education campaigns to build trust and ensure participation, employing experienced local teams for application, rigorous training on proper spraying techniques and safety protocols, establishing strong supply chain management for insecticides and equipment, and implementing environmental monitoring. USAID's oversight and ABT Global LLC's project management would be crucial in identifying and addressing these risks proactively throughout the contract period.

What was the historical spending pattern for indoor residual spraying projects by USAID in Uganda prior to this contract?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for USAID in Uganda related to indoor residual spraying prior to this Phase II activity. However, the existence of a 'Phase II' suggests a preceding 'Phase I' activity, which likely involved similar or foundational work. To understand historical spending, one would need to access USAID's historical contract databases or program reports for Uganda, looking for contracts awarded for malaria control, vector control, or specific IRS programs in the years preceding June 2012. This would reveal the scale, duration, and funding levels of previous efforts, providing context for the $80 million Phase II investment.

How effective has ABT Global LLC been in managing similar public health or international development contracts?

Assessing ABT Global LLC's overall effectiveness requires a review of their past performance on contracts, particularly those with similar scopes of work and objectives. Information on contractor past performance is often available through sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or through agency-specific performance evaluations. Without direct access to such evaluations for ABT Global LLC's portfolio, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment. However, the fact that they were awarded a significant, multi-year contract by USAID suggests they met the agency's requirements and likely had a satisfactory performance record on previous engagements or demonstrated strong capabilities during the bidding process.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical 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: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4550 MONTGOMERY AVE STE 800N, BETHESDA, MD, 20814

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $81,209,832

Exercised Options: $81,209,832

Current Obligation: $79,804,387

Actual Outlays: $-186,065

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $1,261,540,677

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline