DoD's $104M security support contract awarded to foreign entity raises value and competition questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $104,292,721 ($104.3M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-01-14

End Date: 2008-08-24

Contract Duration: 223 days

Daily Burn Rate: $467.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GDW08M4015} RECONSTRUCTION SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES (RSSS)

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $104.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GDW08M4015} RECONSTRUCTION SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES (RSSS) Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a miscellaneous foreign awardee, indicating potential challenges in oversight and domestic economic impact. 2. The contract's duration of 223 days for a firm-fixed-price award suggests a focused scope of work. 3. Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (NAICS 541611) is a broad category, making specific performance assessment difficult without more detail. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, but the single award raises questions about the breadth of the competitive pool. 5. The firm-fixed-price contract type generally shifts risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for the government if well-defined. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, which is typical for contracts of this nature and awardee type.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation and the broad service category. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, it's difficult to assess if the $104 million price represents good value for the security support services rendered. Comparing it to similar domestic contracts is also problematic given the foreign awardee status. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the lack of detailed performance data prevents a robust value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple sources were theoretically allowed to bid. However, the fact that only one award was made, and to a 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee,' raises questions about the actual level of competition achieved. It's unclear if the solicitation attracted a wide range of bidders or if specific circumstances led to a single awardee being selected. This could imply either a highly specialized service where few could compete, or potential limitations in the outreach or evaluation process.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition was advertised, the single award to a foreign entity may limit the direct benefit to U.S. taxpayers through domestic job creation or investment. The price discovery mechanism might have been less robust than if multiple U.S. firms had competed vigorously.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense units requiring security support services in the operational area. Services delivered include reconstruction security support, crucial for maintaining stability and safety in post-conflict or developing environments. The geographic impact is tied to the specific deployment location of the security support services, which is not detailed in the provided data. Workforce implications are unclear, but the award to a foreign entity suggests that the direct employment impact on the U.S. workforce may be minimal.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to a 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee' raises concerns about transparency, oversight, and potential diversion of funds away from domestic economic benefit.
The broad service category 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' makes it difficult to ascertain the specific value and effectiveness of the security support provided.
Limited information on the competitive landscape despite 'full and open competition' designation suggests potential inefficiencies in the bidding process or a lack of qualified domestic bidders.

Positive Signals

The use of a firm-fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the government has successfully shifted performance risk to the contractor.
Awarding under 'full and open competition' theoretically allows for the widest possible range of potential contractors to bid on the requirement.
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD, suggesting a potentially critical operational need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. The market for security support services, particularly in complex operational environments, is significant and often involves specialized firms. Benchmarking this specific contract is difficult without knowing the exact nature of the security support and the geographic context. However, spending on such services by the Department of Defense can run into billions annually, supporting various aspects of military operations and reconstruction efforts.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the awardee is designated as a 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee,' indicating no direct subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses through this specific award. This is common for contracts requiring specialized international capabilities or operating in foreign jurisdictions where local or international firms are better positioned to perform.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures would be tied to the firm-fixed-price contract terms and performance expectations. Transparency is limited by the information provided; however, contract awards are generally subject to public reporting. Inspector General jurisdiction might apply depending on the nature of any potential fraud, waste, or abuse, especially given the significant dollar amount.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Security Cooperation Programs
Reconstruction and Stabilization Services
Contingency Contracting
Foreign Military Sales Support

Risk Flags

Awardee Nationality
Competition Level Ambiguity
Service Scope Definition
Performance Metrics Unclear

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $104.3 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GDW08M4015} RECONSTRUCTION SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES (RSSS)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $104.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-01-14. End: 2008-08-24.

What specific security support services were provided under this contract, and how were they measured for effectiveness?

The provided data classifies this contract under NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) and describes it as 'RECONSTRUCTION SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES (RSSS)'. However, it does not detail the specific services rendered. These could range from physical security of reconstruction sites, personnel security details, threat assessment, to logistical security planning. Effectiveness would typically be measured against pre-defined performance standards and deliverables outlined in the contract's statement of work. Without access to the contract's SOW and performance reports, a precise evaluation of effectiveness is not possible.

How does the $104 million cost compare to similar security support contracts awarded by the DoD during the 2008 period?

Comparing this $104 million contract requires identifying similar 'Reconstruction Security Support Services' contracts awarded around 2008, ideally with comparable scope, duration, and geographic context. Given the 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation, direct comparisons with contracts awarded to U.S. firms might be misleading due to differing overhead, labor costs, and regulatory environments. However, large-scale security and reconstruction support contracts in conflict zones during that era often ran into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. A detailed analysis would involve searching contract databases for comparable services and awardees, adjusting for inflation and specific operational requirements.

What were the risks associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude to a 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee'?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude to a 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee' presents several risks. These include potential challenges in legal recourse and contract enforcement, difficulties in conducting thorough due diligence on the contractor's background and financial stability, and increased complexities in oversight and monitoring performance in foreign jurisdictions. There's also a risk of funds not directly benefiting the U.S. economy through domestic job creation or investment. Furthermore, national security risks could arise if the foreign entity has ties or allegiances that could compromise the mission's integrity or security.

What was the rationale for awarding this contract under 'Full and Open Competition' if only one award was made to a foreign entity?

The rationale for awarding under 'Full and Open Competition' (F&OC) is to ensure that all responsible sources are given the opportunity to compete. Even if only one award is made, the process itself is intended to foster competition and achieve the best value for the government. In this case, the single award to a foreign entity might suggest that either: (1) the requirement was highly specialized, and only one foreign entity met the stringent qualifications; (2) the solicitation process, while open, did not yield sufficient competitive bids from qualified sources; or (3) the evaluation criteria heavily favored the specific capabilities offered by the foreign awardee. The designation 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' implies a category for entities not easily classified, potentially indicating unique circumstances.

How has DoD spending on administrative and management consulting services evolved since 2008, and does this contract represent a typical spending pattern?

DoD spending on administrative and management consulting services has generally fluctuated based on operational needs, geopolitical events, and budget priorities. Since 2008, there has been a significant focus on optimizing defense spending, cybersecurity, and modernization, which often involves consulting services. While $104 million is a substantial amount for a single contract, it represents a portion of the overall DoD budget for such services. Without a broader analysis of DoD's consulting spend trends and the specific nature of RSSS, it's difficult to definitively label this contract as 'typical.' However, large-scale support services in operational theaters have historically commanded significant funding.

What are the implications of the 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type for this security support service?

The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and performance risks are manageable. For reconstruction security support services, an FFP contract implies that the contractor agreed to perform the specified services for a predetermined price, regardless of the actual costs incurred. This shifts the financial risk of cost overruns to the contractor. It incentivizes the contractor to control costs and manage resources efficiently. However, if the scope was not adequately defined or unforeseen circumstances arose, the contractor might face losses, potentially impacting their ability or willingness to perform fully, or leading to disputes.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MISCELLANEOUS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $104,292,721

Exercised Options: $104,292,721

Current Obligation: $104,292,721

Timeline