DoD's $24M RSTB SOF BATTALION COMPLEX contract awarded to ACC Construction Co., Inc. for construction services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,077,471 ($24.1M)

Contractor: ACC Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-28

End Date: 2011-11-14

Contract Duration: 1,326 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: RSTB SOF BATTALION COMPLEX

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.1 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: RSTB SOF BATTALION COMPLEX Key points: 1. The contract value of $24.1 million represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. 4. The duration of 1326 days (approximately 3.6 years) suggests a complex and lengthy construction project. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable projects of similar scale and scope within the Department of Defense. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, which can be a positive indicator of value if the contractor's bid was competitive. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar military construction projects, a definitive assessment of value for money is difficult.

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. The presence of 4 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood of selecting the best value offer. The specific number of bidders (4) is moderate for a project of this magnitude.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. Full and open competition is the preferred method for maximizing value and minimizing the risk of inflated prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new Special Operations Forces (SOF) Battalion Complex. The contract delivers essential construction services for a critical military facility. The geographic impact is localized to the site of construction, likely within the United States. The project will likely involve a significant number of construction workers, impacting the local labor market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the firm-fixed-price contract.
Delays in project completion could impact operational readiness for the SOF battalion.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards and specifications can be complex.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The project addresses a specific need for military infrastructure, contributing to national security.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for military construction is substantial, driven by the Department of Defense's continuous need to build, renovate, and maintain facilities worldwide. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects awarded by various branches of the armed forces, considering factors like project type, size, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, ACC Construction Co., Inc., would determine its own subcontracting strategy, which may or may not involve small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project details might be limited due to security considerations. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
Special Operations Forces Infrastructure
General Building Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns
Project delays
Contractor performance issues
Unforeseen site conditions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.1 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. RSTB SOF BATTALION COMPLEX

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 $24.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-28. End: 2011-11-14.

What is the track record of ACC Construction Co., Inc. with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing the track record of ACC Construction Co., Inc. with the Department of Defense requires access to historical contract data. Without specific data on past performance, it's difficult to assess their reliability and experience with similar military construction projects. Generally, agencies evaluate past performance as a key factor in source selection. A contractor with a history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project completion for the DoD would be considered a lower risk. Conversely, a history of performance issues, disputes, or contract terminations could raise concerns about their suitability for future awards.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar military construction projects?

Directly comparing the $24.1 million award for the RSTB SOF BATTALION COMPLEX to similar military construction projects is challenging without a standardized database of comparable projects. Factors such as project scope, size, location, specific requirements (e.g., security, specialized facilities), and the prevailing economic conditions at the time of award significantly influence costs. However, a general benchmark can be established by looking at other large-scale barracks, training facilities, or administrative buildings constructed for the military. The number of bids received (4) suggests a moderate level of competition, which can be an indicator of whether the price was competitive relative to market expectations for similar work.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risk associated with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a large construction project like this, is the potential for the contractor to incur cost overruns if actual costs exceed the agreed-upon price. While the FFP structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, unforeseen issues such as unexpected site conditions, material price escalations beyond what was anticipated, labor shortages, or design changes can still lead to contractor financial distress or disputes. For the government, the risk lies in the potential for contractor default or requests for equitable adjustments if the contractor faces significant unrecoverable cost increases. Robust contract administration and clear specifications are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is 'full and open competition' in ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction projects?

Full and open competition is widely considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The process typically involves detailed solicitations, objective evaluation criteria, and a focus on best value, which may include price, technical approach, past performance, and other factors. When multiple qualified bidders participate, the government is more likely to receive competitive bids that reflect fair market value. The 'full and open' approach minimizes the risk of awarding contracts at inflated prices due to limited competition or sole-source justifications.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction projects within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar construction projects within the Department of the Army requires access to comprehensive historical contract databases. Such analysis would typically involve examining the volume and value of contracts awarded for military construction (MILCON) over several fiscal years, categorized by project type (e.g., barracks, training facilities, operational support buildings), geographic region, and contracting agency. Trends might reveal patterns in average project costs, the prevalence of different contract types (FFP vs. cost-plus), and the average number of bids received. Understanding these trends can help in assessing whether current contract awards are in line with historical spending and market conditions, and identify any significant deviations that warrant further investigation.

What are the potential implications of the contract duration (1326 days) on project management and cost?

A contract duration of 1326 days (approximately 3.6 years) for a construction project indicates a significant undertaking with inherent complexities. From a project management perspective, a longer duration necessitates robust oversight, detailed scheduling, and proactive risk management to ensure milestones are met and potential delays are addressed promptly. For cost implications, a longer timeline can increase exposure to market fluctuations in material and labor costs, even under a firm-fixed-price contract, potentially leading to contractor financial strain if not adequately managed. It also means that the capital investment is tied up for a longer period before the facility becomes operational. Effective contract administration is crucial to manage the risks associated with extended project timelines.

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 ID: W912HN07R0011

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 635 NW FRONTAGE RD, AUGUSTA, GA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,011,702

Exercised Options: $24,077,471

Current Obligation: $24,077,471

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN07D0042

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline