DoD's $88M Iraq Life Support Contract Awarded to Fluor Intercontinental Without Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $88,288,244 ($88.3M)
Contractor: Fluor Intercontinental, Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-09-26
End Date: 2011-03-30
Contract Duration: 550 days
Daily Burn Rate: $160.5K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: GRD LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IRAQ
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $88.3 million to FLUOR INTERCONTINENTAL, INC for work described as: GRD LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IRAQ Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, which can incentivize cost overruns. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and reduced value for taxpayer funds. 3. The contract duration of 550 days suggests a significant operational need. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a focus on military support services. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to facilities support services. 6. The contract was a definitive contract, suggesting a clear scope of work.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bidding and the specific nature of support services in a contingency environment. However, cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, while necessary in some situations, carry inherent risks of higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts. Without comparable bids, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was optimal or if taxpayers received the best possible value. The total award amount of over $88 million over its period of performance warrants scrutiny regarding cost efficiency.
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 can provide the required goods or services, or in urgent situations. The absence of competition means there was no market pressure to drive down prices or encourage innovative solutions, potentially leading to higher costs for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process, potentially resulting in a less favorable price for the services rendered.
Public Impact
Service members and personnel operating in various locations in Iraq benefited from essential life support services. The contract ensured the continuity of operations by providing critical logistical and facility support. The geographic impact was broad, covering multiple unspecified locations within Iraq. The contract likely supported a significant number of personnel, indirectly impacting the defense workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize higher spending.
- Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
- Contract duration and value suggest a substantial and potentially ongoing requirement.
Positive Signals
- Ensured critical life support services were delivered in a challenging operational environment.
- Awarded to a known contractor (Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.) with experience in such operations.
- Definitive contract structure implies a defined scope of work.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services, often categorized under professional, scientific, and technical services, are crucial for the operational readiness of government agencies, particularly in defense and contingency operations. This sector involves a wide range of services including maintenance, logistics, and base operations support. The global market for such services is substantial, with significant government spending allocated to maintaining infrastructure and supporting personnel in various theaters. This contract fits within the broader defense spending landscape, specifically addressing the logistical and operational needs in a high-demand environment.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, as the primary award went to a large corporation. Without specific subcontracting plans, it's difficult to assess any indirect benefits to small businesses through potential lower-tier awards.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management oversight mechanisms. Given it was a definitive contract, there would be contractual terms and conditions to monitor. However, the specifics of the oversight applied, accountability measures, and transparency are not detailed in the provided data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Base Operations Support (BOS)
- Logistics and Supply Chain Management
- Contingency Support Services
- Defense Infrastructure Support
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
- Lack of competition
- Contingency operations environment
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, iraq, definitive-contract, large-contract, sole-source, facilities-support-services, life-support, contingency-operations, cost-plus-fixed-fee
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $88.3 million to FLUOR INTERCONTINENTAL, INC. GRD LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IRAQ
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is FLUOR INTERCONTINENTAL, INC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $88.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-09-26. End: 2011-03-30.
What is the track record of Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. in performing similar large-scale support services contracts for the Department of Defense, particularly in contingency environments?
Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. has a significant history of performing large-scale engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) projects, as well as operations and maintenance services for government clients, including the Department of Defense. They have been involved in numerous contracts supporting military operations in various global locations, often in challenging or austere environments. Their experience includes providing base operations support, logistics, and life support services. While specific performance metrics for this particular $88 million contract are not detailed here, Fluor's general track record suggests they possess the capacity and experience to handle such complex requirements. However, the effectiveness and value derived from any contract are subject to specific performance evaluations and oversight.
How does the $88 million award amount compare to similar facilities support services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense in the same period?
Comparing this $88 million award to similar contracts is complex due to the unique nature of support services in a contingency zone like Iraq during the specified period (2009-2011). Contracts for facilities support services can vary widely in scope, duration, and the specific services included (e.g., catering, maintenance, security, transportation). However, given the duration of 550 days and the operational context, $88 million represents a substantial investment. Without access to a database of comparable sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for similar services in Iraq during that timeframe, a precise benchmark is difficult. Generally, large-scale support contracts in active operational theaters tend to be high-value due to logistical complexities and risk factors.
What were the specific justifications provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?
The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source award. Typical justifications for sole-source awards include urgent and compelling needs where only one responsible source can reasonably provide the required services, or when the nature of the work is such that only a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities. For defense contracts in operational theaters like Iraq, justifications often cite security concerns, the need for rapid deployment of services, or the existence of specialized knowledge or equipment held by a single vendor. Without the specific contract file or justification documentation, the precise reasons remain unknown, but these are the common rationales employed in such circumstances.
What were the primary services delivered under this contract, and how did they contribute to the overall mission objectives in Iraq?
This contract, titled 'GRD LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IRAQ,' primarily focused on providing essential life support services. While the exact breakdown of services is not detailed, these typically encompass a wide range of necessities for personnel operating in a deployed environment. This could include catering and food services, facility maintenance and repair, laundry services, transportation, waste management, and potentially security support. By ensuring these fundamental needs were met, the contract directly contributed to maintaining the morale, health, and operational readiness of military and civilian personnel. This, in turn, supported the broader mission objectives by allowing personnel to focus on their primary duties without being encumbered by basic living and operational requirements.
What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit within that trend?
The Department of the Army historically spends significant amounts on facilities support services, especially during periods of sustained military operations abroad, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. These services are critical for maintaining bases, providing logistical support, and ensuring the well-being of deployed personnel. Spending in this category often fluctuates based on the scale and duration of military engagements. This $88 million contract, awarded between 2009 and 2011, falls within a period of significant U.S. military presence in Iraq. While this single contract represents a notable expenditure, it should be viewed within the larger context of the Army's overall budget for base operations and support services during that era, which likely ran into billions of dollars annually across various theaters.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: W912ER09R0087
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Fluor Corporation (UEI: 006907190)
Address: 100 FLUOR DANIEL DR, GREENVILLE, SC, 29607
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $88,288,244
Exercised Options: $88,288,244
Current Obligation: $88,288,244
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-09-26
Current End Date: 2011-03-30
Potential End Date: 2011-03-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2017-06-12
More Contracts from Fluor Intercontinental, Inc
- Logcap IV Services Afghanistan — $12.6B (Department of Defense)
- Afghanistan South Expansion — $639.9M (Department of Defense)
- 200607!601203!2100!w912er!transatlantic Program Center !w912er04d0004 !A!N! !Y!0017 ! !20060410!20070514!140243291!140243291!006907190!n!fluor Intercontinental Inc !100 Fluor Daniel Drive !greenville !SC!29607!00000! !IZ! ! !iraq !+000059103585!n!n!000000000000!z299!maint/All Other Non-Building Facilities !S1 !services !000 !NOT Discernable !541330!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!u!j!2!030!b! !Z!N!A! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $375.8M (Department of Defense)
- Hafb Operation Allies Welcome (refuge) - O21R — $352.1M (Department of Defense)
- 200312!001241!2100!CA78 !transatlantic Program Center !daca7803d0005 !A!N! !N!0006 !20030919!20040331!615422995!615422995!006907190!n!fluor Intercontinental, Inc !ONE Enterprise Drive !aliso Viejo !CA!92656!* !* !IZ!* !* !iraq !+000000460000!n!n!000000000000!y199!other Miscellaneous Buildings !C2 !construction !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !236220!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20040331!B! ! !n!a!d!n!u!1!001!n!2a!z!n!z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! !Y!Y! ! !0001! ! — $334.4M (Department of Defense)
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)