International Resources Group Ltd. received $12.7M for technical assistance to Eco-Asia Clean Development

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,694,227 ($12.7M)

Contractor: International Resources Group Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2006-09-30

End Date: 2011-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ECO-ASIA CLEAN DEVELOPMENT

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $12.7 million to INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP LTD. for work described as: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ECO-ASIA CLEAN DEVELOPMENT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Duration of 5 years suggests a need for sustained support. 3. Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services are broad, requiring clear performance metrics. 4. The contract's value is moderate within the context of international development projects. 5. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially impacting smaller firms' participation. 6. The fixed-fee structure provides some cost certainty but may limit incentives for efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12.7 million over five years averages approximately $2.5 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar international development consulting contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the sole-source nature raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price. The fixed-fee structure offers some predictability but might not incentivize the most cost-effective delivery compared to performance-based contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the specific task. The lack of competition means there was no direct price comparison or opportunity for multiple firms to bid, potentially leading to higher costs than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without a competitive process, there's less assurance that the pricing reflects market rates or that the most cost-effective solution was identified.

Public Impact

Benefits environmental initiatives and clean development strategies in the Eco-Asia region. Provides technical expertise and management consulting services to support program objectives. Impacts the environmental sector by fostering sustainable development practices. Supports the Agency for International Development's mission in promoting global development and environmental stewardship.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Broad service category may lead to scope creep or unclear deliverables.
Lack of small business participation could be a missed opportunity for economic inclusion.

Positive Signals

Long-term engagement suggests a recognized need and established relationship.
Fixed-fee structure provides budget predictability for the agency.
Focus on clean development aligns with critical global environmental goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically management consulting, applied to international development and environmental initiatives. The market for such services is diverse, with many firms specializing in technical assistance for developing nations. The value of $12.7 million is moderate for a multi-year international project, but the specific niche of clean development assistance within the Eco-Asia region is specialized.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements mentioned. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in delivering these services were likely limited unless they were direct subcontractors to International Resources Group Ltd. without a formal set-aside mandate.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would primarily be conducted by the Agency for International Development's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability would be tied to the performance against the contract's objectives and deliverables, as outlined in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the proprietary information typically associated with consulting services.

Related Government Programs

International Development Assistance
Environmental Consulting Services
Management and Administrative Support
Clean Energy Initiatives

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for higher cost
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $12.7 million to INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP LTD.. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ECO-ASIA CLEAN DEVELOPMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP LTD..

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 $12.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-30. End: 2011-09-30.

What specific technical assistance was provided under this contract?

The contract, valued at $12.7 million, was for 'TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ECO-ASIA CLEAN DEVELOPMENT' awarded to INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES GROUP LTD. by the Agency for International Development. While the specific deliverables are not detailed in the provided data, the contract's nature as 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' suggests that the assistance likely involved strategic planning, program management, policy advice, capacity building, and potentially technical expertise related to clean development projects within the Eco-Asia region. The duration of five years indicates a need for ongoing support in implementing and managing these initiatives.

How does the $12.7 million contract value compare to similar international development consulting contracts?

The $12.7 million contract value over five years, averaging $2.54 million annually, is a moderate sum for international development consulting. Larger, multi-year programs managed by agencies like USAID can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. However, the specific focus on 'Eco-Asia Clean Development' suggests a specialized niche. Without knowing the exact scope, deliverables, and the specific countries or regions within Eco-Asia targeted, a precise comparison is difficult. Generally, sole-source contracts can be more expensive than competed ones, so this figure might be higher than a competitive award for similar services.

What are the risks associated with a sole-source award for this type of service?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the lack of competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated pricing and potentially suboptimal service quality. Without multiple bidders vying for the contract, the government may not achieve the best value for taxpayer money. There's also a risk that the chosen contractor, while possessing unique qualifications, might not be the most innovative or efficient provider available. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process, potentially limiting opportunities for other qualified firms.

What was the track record of International Resources Group Ltd. with USAID prior to this contract?

The provided data does not include information on the prior track record of International Resources Group Ltd. with USAID. To assess this, one would need to review historical contract databases, performance evaluations (like Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any publicly available information on previous engagements. A strong track record with positive performance reviews would mitigate some of the risks associated with a sole-source award, suggesting the agency had confidence in the contractor's ability to deliver.

How effective was the technical assistance in achieving Eco-Asia Clean Development goals?

The provided data does not contain information on the effectiveness or outcomes of the technical assistance provided under this contract. Assessing effectiveness would require reviewing program reports, impact assessments, and performance metrics established within the contract. Key indicators might include the successful implementation of clean development projects, measurable improvements in environmental quality, adoption of sustainable practices, or capacity building within local institutions in the Eco-Asia region. Without such data, the actual impact remains unknown.

What is the typical duration for similar international technical assistance contracts?

The typical duration for international technical assistance contracts can vary significantly based on the complexity of the program, the region, and the funding agency's strategy. Five-year contracts, like the one awarded to International Resources Group Ltd., are common for multi-faceted development programs that require sustained effort and relationship building. Shorter contracts (1-3 years) might be used for specific, time-bound projects or assessments, while longer-term engagements (5-10 years) are often seen for large-scale, strategic initiatives or institutional strengthening efforts.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

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

Parent Company: L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 008898843)

Address: 1211 CT AVE NW STE 700, WASHINGTON, DC, 20036

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,615,339

Exercised Options: $13,615,339

Current Obligation: $12,694,227

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: AIDEPPI000300013

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline