Doyon-American Mechanical JV awarded $12.8M for Fort Wainwright facility construction, highlighting construction sector spending

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,852,480 ($12.9M)

Contractor: Doyon-American Mechanical JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-25

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,377 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FTW339 STRYKER WASH FACILITY, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WAINWRIGHT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR County, ALASKA, 99703

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.9 million to DOYON-AMERICAN MECHANICAL JV for work described as: FTW339 STRYKER WASH FACILITY, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this project. 3. Project duration of over three years indicates a substantial construction undertaking. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 5. Geographic focus on Alaska presents unique logistical and environmental considerations. 6. The project falls within the broader category of institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $12.8 million for a wash facility at Fort Wainwright appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects in remote or challenging environments like Alaska would provide further context. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to establish a clear cost ceiling, which is generally favorable for value.

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 initially excluded. This suggests a potentially limited pool of bidders compared to unrestricted full and open competition. The number of bidders (4) is moderate, and the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the rationale behind it to ensure fair competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with a moderate number of bidders, could potentially limit price discovery and may not have secured the absolute best value for taxpayers if qualified bidders were unfairly excluded.

Public Impact

Military personnel at Fort Wainwright will benefit from improved facilities. The construction services delivered will enhance the operational readiness and living conditions at the base. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, specifically at Fort Wainwright. The project likely created temporary construction jobs in the Alaska region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise in Alaska.
Logistical challenges in remote Alaska could impact project timelines and costs.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause requires scrutiny to ensure fair competition.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Award to a joint venture may indicate capacity to handle complex projects.
Project addresses a specific infrastructure need for the military.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the federal contracting landscape. Federal spending in construction often supports military bases, government facilities, and infrastructure projects. The market for military construction is often characterized by specialized requirements and geographic considerations, as seen with this Alaska-based project. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other military facility construction contracts, particularly those in similar climates or remote locations.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This means the primary contract was competed broadly, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the joint venture partners themselves are small businesses or engage small businesses for subcontracting work not explicitly detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which places cost risk on the contractor. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific details of the 'exclusion of sources' rationale might not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Alaska Infrastructure Projects
Wash Facility Construction
Joint Venture Contracting

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Alaska's remote location may introduce logistical and cost risks.
Project duration is substantial, increasing exposure to changing conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.9 million to DOYON-AMERICAN MECHANICAL JV. FTW339 STRYKER WASH FACILITY, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOYON-AMERICAN MECHANICAL JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-25. End: 2012-12-31.

What was the specific rationale for excluding certain sources in this 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award?

The rationale for excluding specific sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award is typically documented in the contract file. Common reasons include prior performance issues with a contractor, specific technical requirements that only a limited number of firms could meet, or national security concerns. Without access to the detailed contract file and justification documents, the precise reason for exclusion in this case remains unknown. However, such clauses are intended to ensure that competition occurs among responsible sources capable of meeting the government's needs, while potentially streamlining the process by removing demonstrably unsuitable bidders.

How does the $12.8 million contract value compare to similar military wash facility projects in Alaska or other remote locations?

Comparing the $12.8 million contract value requires detailed analysis of similar projects, considering factors like facility size, complexity, specific amenities, and the prevailing economic conditions in the region at the time of award (2009). Construction costs in Alaska are generally higher than in the continental U.S. due to logistical challenges, climate, and specialized labor requirements. A direct comparison would involve identifying projects with comparable square footage, functional requirements (e.g., number of showers, laundry capacity), and construction timelines. Without a database of such specific comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively benchmark the value, but the firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to contain costs within a defined budget for this specific need.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or milestones for this construction project, and how was performance monitored?

Key performance indicators and milestones for a construction project like the Fort Wainwright wash facility typically revolve around adherence to the construction schedule, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and meeting technical specifications outlined in the contract. Performance monitoring would likely involve regular site inspections by government representatives (e.g., contracting officer's representative - COR), progress meetings with the contractor, review of submittals, and verification of completed work against payment requests. Specific KPIs might include on-time completion of critical phases (e.g., foundation, structural, MEP rough-in, finishes), adherence to safety regulations (e.g., zero lost-time incidents), and successful completion of quality assurance checks and final inspections.

What is the typical duration for a project of this scale and type within the Department of Defense?

The duration of a construction project like the Fort Wainwright wash facility, awarded at $12.8 million and lasting 1377 days (approximately 3.77 years), is influenced by several factors. These include the project's complexity, size, specific requirements (e.g., specialized plumbing, ventilation), the need for environmental compliance, and the location. Military construction projects, especially in challenging environments like Alaska, often face longer durations due to logistical hurdles, weather constraints (limiting work during certain seasons), and the rigorous quality assurance and inspection processes mandated by the Department of Defense. While durations can vary widely, a project of this magnitude in a remote location could reasonably extend over several years.

How has federal spending on institutional building construction, particularly for military installations, trended in the years surrounding this contract (2009-2012)?

Federal spending on institutional building construction, including military installations, experienced fluctuations in the years surrounding this contract (2009-2012). The period coincided with the latter stages of significant military operations abroad and ongoing investments in domestic infrastructure. While overall federal spending may have been influenced by economic conditions and budget priorities, defense construction typically remains a priority to maintain readiness and modernize facilities. Spending levels can be influenced by specific military construction authorization acts and appropriations. Without specific data on the broader institutional building construction market for the DoD during that exact timeframe, it's challenging to provide precise trends, but it was a period of sustained, albeit potentially shifting, investment in military infrastructure.

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: ALTERNATIVE SOURCES

Solicitation ID: W911KB07R0006

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 714 FOURTH AVE, STE 302B, FAIRBANKS, AK, 99701

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,852,480

Exercised Options: $12,852,480

Current Obligation: $12,852,480

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911KB08D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline