DoD's $17.18M Dining Facility Construction Contract Awarded to Rand Enterprises, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,175,978 ($17.2M)

Contractor: Rand Enterprises, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-04-30

End Date: 2011-12-09

Contract Duration: 953 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.0K/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: FT JACKSON SC DINING FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBIA, RICHLAND County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29207

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.2 million to RAND ENTERPRISES, INC for work described as: FT JACKSON SC DINING FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics for this project are detailed in the competition analysis section. 3. Risk indicators and performance context are assessed to understand project execution. 4. The contract's sector positioning within commercial and institutional building construction is analyzed. 5. Value for money is benchmarked against similar construction projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $17.18 million for the dining facility construction appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale, though specific benchmarking against comparable military construction projects would provide a clearer picture of value for money. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar facilities, it is difficult to definitively assess pricing efficiency. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial if managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while a broad solicitation was initially intended, specific sources were later excluded. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'limited' competition level suggests that the pool of qualified bidders may have been restricted. This could potentially impact price discovery, as fewer competing firms might lead to less aggressive bidding.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers compared to a scenario with broader, unrestricted full and open competition. It is crucial to understand the rationale behind the exclusion of sources to ensure fair pricing.

Public Impact

Service members at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, will benefit from improved dining facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure for troop welfare and morale. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The construction project likely involved local and regional labor, contributing to the local economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the 'limited' competition led to inflated pricing.
Risk associated with the specific reasons for excluding sources from the competition.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets long-term durability standards.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure limits the government's exposure to cost increases.
Award to Rand Enterprises, Inc. suggests they met the necessary qualifications.
Project addresses a critical need for improved military infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of facilities such as schools, hospitals, government buildings, and, in this case, military dining halls. Spending in this sector is often driven by government infrastructure needs and private sector development. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar government-funded construction projects of comparable size and complexity would provide further context on its market alignment.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) field is false and the 'sb' (small business) field is also false. This suggests that the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Rand Enterprises, Inc. utilized small business subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which places the burden of cost control on the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project execution reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price.
Need for clarity on source exclusion rationale.
Potential for cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Long-term value depends on durability and maintenance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.2 million to RAND ENTERPRISES, INC. FT JACKSON SC DINING FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAND ENTERPRISES, 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 $17.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-30. End: 2011-12-09.

What is the track record of Rand Enterprises, Inc. in completing similar government construction contracts on time and within budget?

Assessing the track record of Rand Enterprises, Inc. requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving similar scope and scale, such as institutional or commercial building construction. This would involve examining contract award databases for previous projects, looking for data on contract modifications, claims, and any instances of termination for default or cause. Information on on-time and within-budget completion rates would provide key insights into their reliability and project management capabilities. A deeper dive into past performance evaluations, if available, would offer qualitative assessments from government contracting officers. Without specific historical data on Rand Enterprises, Inc.'s performance, it is difficult to definitively gauge their reliability for this particular project.

How does the cost per square foot of this dining facility compare to similar military or institutional construction projects?

To benchmark the cost per square foot, we would need the total square footage of the dining facility, which is not provided in the data. Assuming a typical size for a military dining facility, we could then compare the total contract value ($17.18 million) to industry benchmarks. For instance, if the facility were 50,000 square feet, the cost per square foot would be approximately $343.60. This figure would then be compared against average costs for similar government or commercial construction projects in South Carolina or the Southeast region. Factors such as material costs, labor rates, specific design requirements, and site conditions significantly influence per-square-foot costs. A higher or lower figure than the benchmark would warrant further investigation into the specific project details and market conditions.

What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources in the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type?

The award type 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that the initial solicitation was intended to be broadly competitive, but certain potential offerors were subsequently excluded from consideration. The specific reasons for exclusion are critical for understanding the integrity of the competition. Common justifications include failure to meet minimum technical requirements, inability to provide required bonding, past performance issues, or non-compliance with solicitation terms. In some cases, exclusions might relate to national security concerns or specific regulatory requirements. Without access to the documentation detailing these exclusions, it is impossible to ascertain whether they were justified and did not unduly restrict competition, potentially impacting the final price and value for taxpayers.

What is the expected lifespan and maintenance cost of the new dining facility, and how does this impact the long-term value of the contract?

The expected lifespan and associated maintenance costs of the dining facility are crucial for evaluating the long-term value of this construction contract. While the initial construction cost is $17.18 million, the total cost of ownership extends over decades. A well-constructed facility should have a lifespan of 50 years or more, with ongoing costs for routine maintenance, repairs, and potential major renovations. Information regarding the materials used, construction standards, and any warranties provided would inform the projected maintenance needs. Understanding these factors allows for a more comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis, ensuring that the initial investment translates into sustained operational capability and value for the military personnel it serves. Without specific data on projected lifespan and maintenance, this long-term value assessment remains incomplete.

How does the duration of the contract (953 days) align with typical construction timelines for similar-sized dining facilities?

The contract duration of 953 days (approximately 2.6 years) for the Fort Jackson dining facility construction needs to be contextualized against industry standards for projects of similar scope and complexity. Factors influencing construction timelines include the size of the facility, the intricacy of the design, site preparation requirements, weather conditions, and the availability of labor and materials. For a large institutional building like a dining facility, a duration of over two years might be considered standard, especially if it involves significant site work, specialized equipment installation, or phased construction. However, if comparable projects are consistently completed in shorter timeframes, it could suggest potential inefficiencies or unforeseen delays associated with this particular contract. A detailed project schedule and milestone tracking would be necessary for a precise assessment.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9123608R0047

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 850 39TH ST STE101, NEWPORT NEWS, VA, 23607

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,175,978

Exercised Options: $17,175,978

Current Obligation: $17,175,978

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9123609D0014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline