DoD awards $31.4M contract for SRF sites, raising questions about competition and value
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $31,353,071 ($31.4M)
Contractor: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2011-02-24
End Date: 2013-08-25
Contract Duration: 913 days
Daily Burn Rate: $34.3K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: 11 SRF SITES AND 1 YEAR WARRENTY
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $31.4 million to BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP. for work described as: 11 SRF SITES AND 1 YEAR WARRENTY Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, limiting price discovery. 2. Significant duration of 913 days suggests complex or long-term requirements. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type offers cost certainty but may not capture efficiencies. 4. The award to a single contractor warrants scrutiny for potential price inflation. 5. Lack of competition may indicate specialized services or limited market capacity. 6. Performance period extends beyond initial award, requiring ongoing oversight.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract's value of $31.4 million for 11 SRF sites and a one-year warranty appears high given the lack of competitive bidding. Without comparable contract data or market benchmarks, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the absence of competition means potential savings from a competitive process were likely forgone. Further analysis would require understanding the specific scope of work and the unique nature of SRF sites to justify the price.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. The reasons for a sole-source award are not detailed, but it could stem from unique capabilities required, urgent needs, or a lack of qualified bidders. The absence of competition means taxpayers did not benefit from the potential cost savings and broader market engagement that a competitive process would provide.
Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services, as there was no market pressure to offer the lowest possible price.
Public Impact
The Department of Defense benefits from the acquisition of 11 SRF sites, crucial for national security operations. Services delivered include site development and a one-year warranty, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated where the SRF sites are located, supporting defense infrastructure. Workforce implications may involve specialized technical personnel for site construction and maintenance.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
- The extended performance period without competitive re-evaluation could mask inefficiencies.
- Limited transparency into the justification for a sole-source award hinders accountability.
- The specific nature of 'SRF sites' is not defined, making independent value assessment challenging.
Positive Signals
- Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the awarded amount.
- The inclusion of a one-year warranty offers some assurance of service quality post-completion.
- Awarding to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. suggests reliance on established expertise in specialized projects.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader Defense sector, specifically related to infrastructure development and specialized site management. The market for such specialized sites is likely limited, potentially justifying a non-competitive award if unique capabilities are required. However, without more information on the nature of SRF sites and the market landscape, it's difficult to benchmark against comparable spending. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency's focus suggests highly specialized and potentially sensitive infrastructure needs.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that opportunities were specifically created for small businesses. This contract does not appear to contribute to the small business ecosystem or provide subcontracting avenues for smaller firms.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a sole-source award, transparency may be limited. Accountability would rely on the Department of Defense's internal review processes and potentially the Inspector General's office if specific concerns arise regarding performance or cost. The duration of the contract suggests ongoing monitoring would be necessary.
Related Government Programs
- Defense Infrastructure Projects
- Specialized Site Development
- National Security Facilities
- Threat Reduction Programs
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
- Potential for cost overruns due to lack of competition.
- Limited transparency regarding project scope and justification.
- Extended performance period without re-competition.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, defense-threat-reduction-agency, sole-source, firm-fixed-price, infrastructure, national-security, specialized-services, large-contract, non-competed
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $31.4 million to BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP.. 11 SRF SITES AND 1 YEAR WARRENTY
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 $31.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-02-24. End: 2013-08-25.
What are SRF sites and why were they deemed to require a sole-source contract?
SRF sites likely refer to Sensitive Reconnaissance Facilities or similar specialized installations critical for national security and intelligence gathering. The designation 'Sensitive' implies unique security requirements, specialized construction, and potentially classified operational needs. Awarding a sole-source contract suggests that only Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. possessed the specific expertise, clearances, or proprietary technology necessary to fulfill these demanding requirements within the timeframe and budget constraints. Without further declassification or specific project details, the exact nature of SRF sites and the justification for sole-sourcing remains proprietary to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).
How does the $31.4 million cost compare to similar infrastructure projects within the DoD?
Directly comparing the $31.4 million cost is challenging without knowing the specific scope, location, and complexity of the 11 SRF sites. Infrastructure projects within the DoD vary widely in cost, from barracks construction to advanced research facilities. However, for specialized facilities requiring unique security protocols and advanced technology, costs can escalate significantly. The lack of competition means there's no direct market comparison to assess if this price is competitive. A benchmark would require identifying projects with similar security classifications, technical requirements, and scale, which are often not publicly disclosed for national security reasons.
What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?
The primary risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude include potential cost overruns due to the absence of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or achieve efficiencies, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Taxpayers may bear a higher cost than if the contract had been competed. There's also a risk that the contractor may not perform optimally if they perceive less accountability compared to a competitive environment. Furthermore, reliance on a single source can create vulnerabilities if the contractor faces financial difficulties or operational issues.
What does the contract duration of 913 days imply about the project's complexity?
A contract duration of 913 days (approximately 2.5 years) for 11 sites, including a one-year warranty, strongly implies significant complexity and a phased approach to development and implementation. This extended timeline suggests that the project likely involves intricate design, specialized construction techniques, potential environmental or regulatory hurdles, and rigorous testing and commissioning phases. It also indicates that the sites may require substantial infrastructure build-out or modification, rather than simple prefabricated installations. The warranty period further suggests a need for post-construction support and validation of the facilities' performance.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar services by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency?
Historical spending patterns for similar services by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) are not readily available in the public domain due to the classified nature of many of its operations. DTRA focuses on countering weapons of mass destruction, which often involves highly specialized and sensitive projects. While DTRA's overall budget is substantial, specific contract details for infrastructure like SRF sites are typically restricted. Analyzing historical spending would require access to internal DoD procurement databases or declassified reports, which are not publicly accessible for this type of specialized contract.
What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure the contractor meets performance expectations?
Specific oversight mechanisms for this sole-source contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, federal contracts, especially those awarded by agencies like the DoD, typically involve contract officers, program managers, and potentially quality assurance representatives who monitor performance. For a project of this duration and potential sensitivity, oversight would likely include regular progress reviews, site inspections, and milestone-based payments contingent on satisfactory performance. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may also play a role in oversight. The effectiveness of oversight is crucial in mitigating risks associated with sole-source awards.
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 COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: HDTRA111R0006
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Black & Veatch Holding Company (UEI: 788948115)
Address: 6601 COLLEGE BLVD, OVERLAND PARK, KS, 03
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $35,126,139
Exercised Options: $31,353,071
Current Obligation: $31,353,071
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2011-02-24
Current End Date: 2013-08-25
Potential End Date: 2013-08-25 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-04-02
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)