WHAT IS THIS?

This is a contract between the U.S. Department of State and BL Harbert International LLC, a construction company, to manage the design and construction of a new U.S. Embassy complex in Hanoi, Vietnam. The company will oversee the planning and building phases of this diplomatic facility over roughly seven years.

WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

The U.S. government is required by law to maintain secure and functional diplomatic facilities overseas. The Department of State regularly funds new embassy construction to replace aging, unsafe, or overcrowded buildings through its Overseas Buildings Operations program.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

The United States needs safe, modern, and secure facilities abroad for its diplomats and staff to carry out foreign policy work. Older or inadequate embassy buildings can pose security risks and limit the government's ability to serve American citizens and conduct diplomacy effectively.

WHO BENEFITS?

U.S. diplomats, government employees, and American citizens living in or visiting Vietnam will benefit from a safer and more functional embassy. Construction workers and local contractors involved in the project will also benefit from the employment opportunities it creates.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

A contract of this size, spanning nearly eight years, carries significant risks of cost overruns, construction delays, and contractor performance issues. Oversight of large overseas construction projects can be difficult, and the contract type is listed as unknown, which limits transparency about how costs and incentives are structured.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

If this contract were cancelled, the U.S. would likely be left without a modern, secure embassy facility in Hanoi, forcing staff to remain in a building that may not meet current safety or operational standards. Diplomatic operations in Vietnam could be disrupted or compromised.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •A secure, modern embassy protects American diplomats and citizens in Vietnam and allows the U.S. to conduct foreign policy more effectively.
• •Investing in embassy infrastructure is a long-term asset that reduces future maintenance and safety costs.
• •The project supports American jobs through a U.S.-based construction firm managing the work.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •At over $819 million, this is an extremely large expenditure, and critics may question whether the cost is justified compared to other domestic spending priorities.
• •Large, long-term overseas construction contracts have a history of delays and cost overruns that can push final costs well beyond the original award amount.
• •The contract type is listed as unknown, which raises questions about accountability and how taxpayer money will be tracked and controlled over the life of the project.