Fort Benning construction contract awarded to Clark Caddell Joint Venture for over $50.9 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $50,926,294 ($50.9M)

Contractor: Clark Caddell a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-26

End Date: 2011-10-03

Contract Duration: 1,102 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF AIT FOR FORT BENNING GA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, MUSCOGEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $50.9 million to CLARK CADDELL A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF AIT FOR FORT BENNING GA Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under firm-fixed-price terms, indicating a defined cost for the construction services. 2. With four bidders, the competition level suggests a moderate degree of market interest for this type of project. 3. The contract duration of 1102 days points to a significant construction undertaking. 4. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code, placing it within a broad construction sector. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, implying it was open to all qualified large and small firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific construction project is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar facilities built in the same timeframe and region. The total award amount of over $50.9 million for a 1102-day construction project suggests a substantial investment. However, without access to the specific scope of work, material costs, labor rates, and profit margins, a definitive assessment of value for money is difficult. The firm-fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty but can sometimes lead to higher initial bids if contractors perceive significant risks.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With four bidders participating, the competition level was moderate. This suggests that while there was interest from multiple firms, the market may not have been saturated with potential offerors. The presence of four bidders generally allows for some price discovery and encourages competitive pricing, though a higher number of bidders typically leads to more aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve the quality of services offered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Army, which will receive the constructed facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure improvements at Fort Benning, Georgia, supporting military operations and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Benning, Georgia, contributing to the local economy through construction jobs and related services. The construction activities will likely involve a significant workforce, including skilled trades, project managers, and support staff, creating employment opportunities in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price fluctuations occur, despite the fixed-price nature.
The long duration of the project increases the risk of contractor performance issues or delays.
Dependence on a single joint venture for a large-scale project could pose risks if internal management or financial issues arise within the venture.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government, limiting the risk of unexpected cost increases.
Awarding to a joint venture can pool resources and expertise, potentially enhancing project execution capabilities.
The full and open competition process suggests a thorough vetting of potential contractors.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the overall construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as government facilities, offices, and educational institutions. The market for large-scale government construction projects is often characterized by specialized firms, joint ventures, and significant bonding requirements. Spending in this sector is heavily influenced by government infrastructure needs and defense spending priorities. Comparable benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot or cost per project for similar military construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it indicate any specific subcontracting goals for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business or a joint venture likely composed of larger entities. The absence of explicit small business provisions means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily arise through the prime contractor's subcontracting decisions, which are not detailed here. This could limit direct opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army construction contract would typically be managed by the Army Corps of Engineers or a designated contracting officer's representative (COR). Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards, payment schedules tied to milestones, and potential penalties for delays or deficiencies. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic information on contract value, parties involved, and competition type. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction
Fort Benning Operations Support

Risk Flags

Long project duration increases risk of performance issues.
Potential for cost escalation in materials or labor over three years.
Joint venture structure requires monitoring of internal dynamics and financial stability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $50.9 million to CLARK CADDELL A JOINT VENTURE. CONSTRUCTION OF AIT FOR FORT BENNING GA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CLARK CADDELL A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $50.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-26. End: 2011-10-03.

What was the specific scope of work for the construction of AIT at Fort Benning?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'CONSTRUCTION OF AIT FOR FORT BENNING GA'. AIT typically stands for Advanced Individual Training. Therefore, the scope of work likely involved the design and/or construction of facilities necessary to support the training of new military recruits at Fort Benning. This could include barracks, classrooms, training facilities, administrative buildings, and associated infrastructure such as utilities, roads, and site work. The exact specifications, square footage, and types of buildings would be detailed in the full contract statement of work, which is not available in the provided summary data. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined set of deliverables were agreed upon at the time of award.

How does the $50.9 million award compare to other similar military construction projects?

Comparing the $50.9 million award requires context regarding the scale and type of construction. Projects for Advanced Individual Training (AIT) facilities can vary significantly in scope. For instance, constructing new barracks and training facilities for a large influx of recruits would naturally be more expensive than renovating existing structures or building smaller support facilities. Without knowing the specific deliverables (e.g., number of buildings, square footage, complexity of training equipment integration), a direct comparison is difficult. However, $50.9 million is a substantial sum, indicative of a major construction effort. Benchmarking against other large-scale military construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense in the same period (around 2008-2011) would be necessary for a more precise comparison, looking at factors like cost per square foot or cost per trainee capacity.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a long-duration construction project?

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty to the government, they can introduce risks for the contractor, which may be reflected in the initial bid price. For a long-duration project like this (1102 days), the primary risks for the contractor include unforeseen escalation in material costs, labor shortages or wage increases, and potential changes in regulatory requirements over the project's lifespan. If these risks materialize and are not adequately accounted for in the initial bid, the contractor's profit margin can be significantly eroded, potentially leading to financial distress or pressure to cut corners on quality. For the government, the risk is that the contractor may have inflated the bid price to cover these potential contingencies, resulting in a higher overall cost than a cost-reimbursable contract might have yielded if managed efficiently.

What does the presence of four bidders signify about the market for this type of construction?

The fact that four bids were received for this construction contract suggests a moderately competitive market for this specific type of project at Fort Benning. 'Full and Open Competition' was utilized, meaning the opportunity was broadly advertised. Four bidders indicate that multiple firms were interested and capable of undertaking the project. This level of competition is generally considered healthy; it provides the government with options and encourages competitive pricing. However, it is not as robust as markets with a larger number of bidders (e.g., 6-10+), which often drive prices down more aggressively. The number of bidders can also be influenced by factors such as project complexity, geographic location, bonding requirements, and the overall health of the construction industry at the time of solicitation.

What is the track record of 'CLARK CADDELL A JOINT VENTURE' in federal contracting?

The provided data identifies 'CLARK CADDELL A JOINT VENTURE' as the contractor. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their history of federal contracts. This includes the number of contracts awarded, their total value, performance ratings (if available), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Clark and Caddell are both established construction firms, and forming a joint venture for a large project like this is common. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases would reveal their past performance on similar projects, particularly those for the Department of Defense or other government agencies. This analysis would help determine their experience, reliability, and capacity to successfully execute large-scale construction projects.

How does the contract duration of 1102 days impact project oversight and risk?

A contract duration of 1102 days (approximately three years) for the construction of AIT facilities at Fort Benning necessitates a sustained and robust oversight strategy. Over such an extended period, there is an increased risk of various issues arising, including potential changes in project requirements, unforeseen site conditions, contractor performance degradation, or shifts in economic factors like material costs and labor availability. Effective oversight requires consistent monitoring of progress against schedule, quality control inspections, diligent contract administration, and proactive risk management. The government must maintain a dedicated team or representative to manage the contract throughout its lifecycle, ensuring compliance with terms, addressing issues promptly, and managing change orders judiciously. The long duration amplifies the importance of strong project management from both the contractor and the government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9126G07R0122

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2502 N ROCKY POINT DR, TAMPA, FL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $60,020,294

Exercised Options: $50,926,294

Current Obligation: $50,926,294

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9126G08D0051

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline