DoD's $24.8M Barracks Rehab contract awarded to Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. for construction services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,852,686 ($24.9M)

Contractor: Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-20

End Date: 2013-09-30

Contract Duration: 741 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TBUP BARRACKS REHAB BLDG. 29702 AND BLDG. 25720

Place of Performance

Location: AUGUSTA, RICHMOND County, GEORGIA, 30905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.9 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: TBUP BARRACKS REHAB BLDG. 29702 AND BLDG. 25720 Key points: 1. Contract value of $24.8M for barracks rehabilitation. 2. Awarded to Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. 3. Contract duration of 741 days. 4. Firm Fixed Price contract type. 5. Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources. 6. Geographic location: Georgia.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $24.8 million for barracks rehabilitation appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope, though specific benchmarks for similar military construction projects are needed for a definitive assessment. The firm fixed price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be beneficial for the government. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar projects in the same region or for the same type of facility, it is difficult to ascertain the optimal value for money achieved.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. This suggests a potentially limited competitive landscape compared to a truly open competition. With 6 bidders, there was some level of competition, but the exclusion of specific sources might have impacted the breadth of proposals received and potentially the final price.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if all potential sources had been allowed to bid. However, the presence of 6 bidders still provides some leverage for price negotiation.

Public Impact

Service members residing in the barracks will benefit from improved living conditions. The project involves the rehabilitation of two specific buildings (29702 and 25720). The geographic impact is localized to the military installation in Georgia. The construction services will likely involve a workforce of skilled tradespeople and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the 'Exclusion of Sources' limited competitive pricing.
Risk associated with the firm fixed price if unforeseen construction challenges arise.
The specific reasons for excluding certain sources are not detailed, raising questions about fairness.

Positive Signals

Award to a single contractor ensures clear lines of responsibility for project completion.
Firm fixed price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Competition among 6 bidders suggests a degree of market interest and potential for reasonable pricing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this sector often involves large-scale infrastructure and facility maintenance projects for government agencies. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar military barracks rehabilitation projects or general institutional building construction in the Southeast region would provide further context on its cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, Engineering Design Technologies, Inc., would determine any subcontracting opportunities, and their small business subcontracting plan performance is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified rehabilitation within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and cost justifications may not always be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Barracks Modernization
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Federal Building Rehabilitation

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise.
Contractor performance history needs verification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.9 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. TBUP BARRACKS REHAB BLDG. 29702 AND BLDG. 25720

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $24.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-20. End: 2013-09-30.

What is the track record of Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

A review of federal contract databases would be necessary to fully assess Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.'s track record. This would involve examining past performance on similar projects, including their size, scope, and complexity, as well as their history with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Key indicators to look for include on-time and on-budget performance, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Understanding their past performance provides insight into their capability to successfully execute the current barracks rehabilitation project and manage associated risks.

How does the awarded amount of $24.8 million compare to similar barracks rehabilitation projects undertaken by the Department of Defense in recent years?

To benchmark the value, one would compare this $24.8 million contract against similar barracks rehabilitation projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other military branches over the past 3-5 years. Factors to consider include the square footage of the buildings rehabilitated, the extent of the rehabilitation (e.g., structural, MEP, finishes), the geographic location (as construction costs vary regionally), and the specific year of award. A higher or lower cost per square foot or per building compared to similar projects could indicate either exceptional value or potential overpricing. Without access to a detailed cost breakdown and comparable project data, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

What specific risks were identified during the procurement process for this contract, and what mitigation strategies were put in place?

The procurement documentation, particularly the source selection plan and any pre-award evaluations, would detail identified risks. Given the 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' award type, a primary risk might be the limited pool of bidders potentially leading to higher prices or reduced innovation. Other risks could include contractor performance issues, schedule delays, or unforeseen site conditions during construction. Mitigation strategies might involve robust performance monitoring, clear contract clauses for delays and quality control, and contingency planning for unexpected issues. The specific exclusions of sources would also need to be examined for any inherent risks.

What is the expected impact of these barracks renovations on soldier morale and retention?

Modern and well-maintained barracks are widely recognized as crucial for improving soldier morale, well-being, and retention. Renovated living quarters can provide a more comfortable and functional environment, which is a significant factor for service members. Positive impacts can include increased satisfaction with living conditions, reduced stress, and a greater sense of being valued by the military. This, in turn, can contribute to higher retention rates as soldiers perceive their quality of life to be better supported. The specific scope of the rehabilitation (e.g., upgrades to private living spaces, common areas, or amenities) will influence the magnitude of these effects.

How has federal spending on military barracks construction and rehabilitation trended over the last decade, and where does this contract fit within that trend?

Federal spending on military barracks construction and rehabilitation has generally been a consistent priority for the Department of Defense, aimed at modernizing aging infrastructure and improving quality of life for service members. Trends often reflect overall defense budgets, specific military construction initiatives, and the need to address deferred maintenance. This $24.8 million contract represents a specific investment within that broader spending pattern. Analyzing historical spending data for similar projects would reveal whether this contract is part of an increasing, decreasing, or stable investment trend in barracks infrastructure. It's important to consider if this project addresses a critical need or is part of a larger modernization program.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912HN09R0059

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1705 ENTERPRISE WAY SE STE 200, MARIETTA, GA, 11

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,852,686

Exercised Options: $24,852,686

Current Obligation: $24,852,686

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN11D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline