Hensel Phelps Construction Co. awarded $39.8M for UEPH construction, highlighting significant investment in military housing infrastructure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $39,866,237 ($39.9M)
Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction CO.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-02-19
End Date: 2010-09-01
Contract Duration: 559 days
Daily Burn Rate: $71.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION ALL WORK FOR UEPH
Place of Performance
Location: FORT HOOD, CORYELL County, TEXAS, 76544
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $39.9 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION ALL WORK FOR UEPH Key points: 1. The contract value of $39.8 million represents a substantial investment in military family housing. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process, which can drive better pricing. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially protecting the government from overruns. 4. The project duration of 559 days indicates a significant construction undertaking. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, underscoring its role in supporting military personnel. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $39.8 million for the construction of UEPH (Unaccompanied Personnel Housing) appears reasonable given the scope of a large construction project. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract is a positive indicator for cost control, as it places the financial risk on the contractor.
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 6 bidders participating, the level of competition appears healthy, suggesting that the government likely received competitive pricing. This broad solicitation process is designed to maximize opportunities for diverse contractors and potentially uncover the most cost-effective solutions.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this construction project is beneficial for taxpayers as it is likely to result in a lower overall cost compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. The presence of multiple bidders drives down prices through market forces.
Public Impact
Military personnel stationed at the Texas facility will benefit from improved housing accommodations. The construction services delivered will result in new or renovated unaccompanied personnel housing units. The geographic impact is localized to Texas, specifically the area where the Department of the Army facility is located. The project will likely create jobs in the construction sector within Texas during its execution.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for construction delays impacting project completion timelines.
- Risk of unforeseen site conditions requiring change orders and increasing costs.
- Ensuring compliance with all environmental and safety regulations during construction.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract mitigates cost overrun risk for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process and potentially competitive pricing.
- Award to an established contractor like Hensel Phelps may indicate a track record of successful project delivery.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for military construction is significant, driven by the Department of Defense's continuous need to maintain and upgrade its infrastructure. Spending benchmarks for similar projects would typically consider factors like square footage, type of facility, and location. The $39.8 million award is substantial and indicative of a large-scale construction effort.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist for small businesses within the scope of this large construction project.
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, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific oversight details may not be publicly detailed.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Family Housing Construction
- Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Projects
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
- Risk of delays impacting project completion and operational readiness.
- Ensuring quality control throughout the construction process.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, military-housing, texas, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, delivery-order
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $39.9 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.. CONSTRUCTION ALL WORK FOR UEPH
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $39.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-02-19. End: 2010-09-01.
What is the track record of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. on similar government contracts?
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is a well-established construction firm with a significant history of performing work for the federal government, including numerous projects for the Department of Defense and other agencies. Their portfolio often includes large-scale infrastructure, institutional, and military construction. While specific performance metrics for this particular UEPH project are not detailed here, their general track record suggests experience in managing complex projects of this nature. A deeper dive into past performance reviews, any documented disputes, or on-time completion rates for similar contracts would provide a more granular assessment of their reliability and effectiveness as a government contractor.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or budget for this project?
The provided data shows the awarded amount of $39,866,237 but does not include the government's estimate or budget for this project. Without the estimated cost, it is difficult to definitively assess whether the contract was awarded at a favorable price. In a full and open competition with 6 bidders, it is generally expected that the awarded price would be competitive. However, a true value-for-money assessment would require comparing the awarded price against the government's independent cost estimate and potentially against benchmark costs for similar construction projects in the same geographic region.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of construction contract for the government?
The primary risks for the government in a firm fixed-price construction contract, even with full and open competition, revolve around potential contractor performance issues. While the price is fixed, risks include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability, delays in project completion impacting operational readiness, or unforeseen site conditions that, while contractually managed, can still lead to disputes or require significant government oversight. Ensuring robust quality assurance and inspection protocols are in place is crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the final product meets all specifications and standards.
What is the historical spending trend for Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UEPH) construction by the Department of the Army?
Historical spending on Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UEPH) construction by the Department of the Army is typically substantial, reflecting the ongoing need to provide adequate living quarters for service members. Annual spending can fluctuate based on military readiness requirements, infrastructure modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. While this specific contract represents a single large investment, the Army consistently allocates significant funds towards barracks, dormitories, and other forms of unaccompanied housing across its global installations. Analyzing multi-year spending data would reveal trends in investment levels, types of construction prioritized, and geographic distribution of these projects.
How does the number of bidders (6) influence the potential for cost savings for the government?
A total of 6 bidders in a full and open competition generally indicates a healthy level of market interest and competition for the contract. More bidders typically increase the likelihood that the government will receive a competitive price, as contractors vie to win the award. This scenario allows market forces to drive down the price closer to the contractor's cost plus a reasonable profit margin. While 6 bidders is a good number, the actual cost savings depend on the competitiveness of each bid relative to the government's estimate and the overall market conditions for construction services at the time of bidding.
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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: W9126G07R0111
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Hensel Phelps Construction CO (UEI: 063322085)
Address: 8322 CROSS PARK DR, AUSTIN, TX, 78754
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $39,866,237
Exercised Options: $39,866,237
Current Obligation: $39,866,237
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9126G09D0012
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-02-19
Current End Date: 2010-09-01
Potential End Date: 2010-09-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-10-17
More Contracts from Hensel Phelps Construction CO.
- 200112!000146!9700!ZD47 !pentagon Renovation Management !mda94701c2001 !A!N!*!N! !20010918!20121129!791702194!791702194!063322085!n!hensel Phelps Construction CO !4437 Brookfield Corporate !chantilly !va!20151!61672!013!51!pentagon !arlington !virginia !+000145000000!n!n!000000000000!y300!restoration Activities !C2 !construction !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !233320!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!L!2!003!B! !D!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- C103157: Surgery, Radiology, and Laboratory Medicine (srlm) Building Construction — $756.4M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ECB3 Base BID — $711.3M (Department of Defense)
- Zone 1 Tyndall AFB, FL — $650.0M (Department of Defense)
- Award Construction Contract for Repair of Administrative Spaces, Various Locations, Oahu, Hawaii — $378.7M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)