DoD's $33.7M facility sites contract awarded to Black & Veatch, raising questions about competition and value
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $33,739,602 ($33.7M)
Contractor: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2007-07-09
End Date: 2011-09-30
Contract Duration: 1,544 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.9K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: NEW FIELD FACILITY SITES
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $33.7 million to BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP. for work described as: NEW FIELD FACILITY SITES Key points: 1. The contract's value of $33.7 million for facility sites raises concerns about potential overspending without clear benchmarks. 2. Awarded as 'not available for competition,' this sole-source nature limits price discovery and potentially inflates costs. 3. The cost-plus award fee structure can incentivize spending rather than cost savings, warranting close scrutiny. 4. A duration of 1544 days suggests a long-term commitment, requiring ongoing performance monitoring. 5. The lack of small business involvement indicates missed opportunities for economic inclusion. 6. The contract's focus on national security implies critical but potentially opaque operational requirements.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this $33.7 million contract is challenging due to the lack of publicly available comparable data for similar facility site development under sole-source awards. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) contract type, while allowing for flexibility, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed rigorously. Without detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns, assessing the true value-for-money is difficult. The absence of competitive bidding further complicates a fair assessment of pricing against market rates.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded under a 'not available for competition' justification, indicating a sole-source procurement. This means only one contractor, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., was solicited. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for other qualified firms to bid, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. This approach is often used when a specific capability is required that only one entity possesses, but it bypasses the standard price discovery mechanisms of a competitive process.
Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means they may not be receiving the best possible price for the services rendered. The absence of competition removes the downward pressure on costs that multiple bids would normally exert, potentially leading to higher overall expenditure for the government.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense, specifically the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, receiving critical facility site development. The services delivered are essential for national security operations, supporting threat reduction initiatives. The geographic impact is not specified but is likely tied to specific defense installations requiring new or upgraded facilities. Workforce implications would include specialized construction, engineering, and project management roles, potentially benefiting a skilled labor pool.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
- Cost-plus award fee structure may incentivize higher spending rather than cost efficiency.
- Lack of transparency in the 'not available for competition' justification hinders public scrutiny.
- Absence of small business participation represents a missed opportunity for economic inclusion.
- Long contract duration (1544 days) requires sustained oversight to ensure performance and cost control.
Positive Signals
- Award to a known entity, Black & Veatch, suggests reliance on established expertise for critical national security needs.
- The contract addresses essential facility development, crucial for the agency's mission.
- The definitive contract type provides a framework for a defined period of service delivery.
Sector Analysis
The defense sector, particularly within facility development and infrastructure, is a significant area of government spending. Contracts like this support the maintenance and expansion of military bases and specialized operational sites. The market often involves large, established engineering and construction firms capable of handling complex, high-security projects. Benchmarks for similar facility development can vary widely based on scope, location, and security requirements, but competitive bidding typically yields more predictable cost structures.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Black & Veatch, is expected to perform the work directly or through larger partners, potentially limiting opportunities for the small business ecosystem within this specific contract's scope.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. As a definitive contract, it implies a structured agreement with defined terms. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance requirements outlined in the contract and the cost-plus award fee structure. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the national security context, making detailed public scrutiny challenging. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Defense Infrastructure Projects
- Threat Reduction Programs
- Facility Engineering Services
- National Security Facilities
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus award fee structure
- Lack of transparency in justification
- Potential for cost overruns
- Limited small business participation
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, defense-threat-reduction-agency, definitive-contract, large-contract, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, facility-sites, national-security, black-and-veatch-special-projects-corp
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $33.7 million to BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP.. NEW FIELD FACILITY SITES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Threat Reduction Agency).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $33.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-07-09. End: 2011-09-30.
What specific facility sites were developed or improved under this contract, and what was the justification for the sole-source award?
The provided data does not specify the exact facility sites developed or improved under this $33.7 million contract awarded to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. The justification for the sole-source award is listed as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is a broad category often used for national security reasons or when a unique capability is required. Without further details, it is impossible to ascertain the precise nature of the facilities or the specific rationale that precluded a competitive bidding process. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess whether a sole-source award was truly necessary and justified, or if it represented a missed opportunity for competitive pricing.
How does the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure for this contract compare to industry standards for similar facility development projects?
The Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure for this $33.7 million contract means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base amount and an award amount, which is determined based on performance against pre-defined criteria. For facility development, especially in sensitive national security contexts, CPAF can offer flexibility. However, it is often viewed with caution as it can incentivize cost incurrence to maximize the fee, potentially leading to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts. Industry standards vary; while CPAF is used, especially for research and development or services where performance is hard to define upfront, fixed-price or cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contracts are often preferred for construction and facility development when requirements are well-defined, as they offer stronger incentives for cost control. The effectiveness of CPAF heavily relies on the clarity and measurability of the award criteria and robust government oversight.
What performance metrics were used to determine the 'award fee' component of this contract, and how did Black & Veatch perform against them?
The provided data for this contract does not include specific performance metrics used to determine the 'award fee' component of the Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure. Similarly, information regarding Black & Veatch's actual performance against these metrics and the resulting award fee amounts is not available. Typically, for facility development contracts, award criteria might include factors such as schedule adherence, quality of construction, safety performance, cost control effectiveness, and responsiveness to government direction. Without access to the contract's statement of work, the specific award fee plan, and performance evaluations, it is impossible to assess how effectively the award fee mechanism incentivized desired outcomes or whether the contractor achieved exceptional performance warranting a significant award fee.
Given the contract's duration of 1544 days (over 4 years), what are the potential risks associated with long-term facility development projects, and how were they mitigated?
A contract duration of 1544 days for facility development presents several risks, including potential cost overruns due to inflation or unforeseen site conditions, schedule delays caused by weather, supply chain disruptions, or changes in requirements, and technological obsolescence if the facilities are intended for long-term use with evolving needs. For this specific contract, the risks associated with a long duration might have been mitigated through the CPAF structure, which allows for adjustments and incentives over time, and potentially through clauses addressing escalation and change orders. However, the sole-source nature limits insight into specific risk mitigation strategies employed. Robust government oversight, regular progress reviews, and contingency planning would be crucial to manage these long-term risks effectively, especially given the national security context.
What is the historical spending pattern for facility site development by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) or similar DoD entities, and how does this contract compare?
The provided data does not offer historical spending patterns for facility site development by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) or similar Department of Defense (DoD) entities. To compare this $33.7 million contract, one would need access to historical contract databases that track spending by agency, contract type, and service category over time. Analyzing past DTRA or DoD facility projects, particularly those awarded competitively versus sole-source, and their final costs relative to initial estimates, would provide context. Without such historical data, it's difficult to determine if this contract's value is typical, high, or low for the services rendered, especially considering its sole-source nature and CPAF structure.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Public Administration › National Security and International Affairs › National Security
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Black & Veatch Holding Company
Address: 6601 COLLEGE BLVD, SHAWNEE MISSION, KS, 66211
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $35,020,235
Exercised Options: $35,020,235
Current Obligation: $33,739,602
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-07-09
Current End Date: 2011-09-30
Potential End Date: 2011-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-03-28
More Contracts from Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
- Design and Construction Management Services TAS::72 1037::TAS — $87.6M (Agency for International Development)
- PMO (level of Effort) — $77.9M (Department of Defense)
- Biological Threat Reduction Program (btrp) Ukraine — $77.2M (Department of Defense)
- Program Management — $52.0M (Department of Defense)
- Program Mangement. Igf::ot::igf — $40.4M (Department of Defense)
View all Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)