Department of the Army awards $11.1M contract for Schofield to Helemano Military Vehicle Trail construction in Hawaii

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,097,406 ($11.1M)

Contractor: Alan Shintani Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-29

End Date: 2010-12-30

Contract Duration: 1,553 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN BUILD FOR FY05 MCA PN 57406, CONSTRUCT ROAD, SCHOFIELD TO HELEMANO MILITARY VEHICLE TRAIL, OAHU, HAWAII

Place of Performance

Location: WAHIAWA, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96786

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.1 million to ALAN SHINTANI INC for work described as: DESIGN BUILD FOR FY05 MCA PN 57406, CONSTRUCT ROAD, SCHOFIELD TO HELEMANO MILITARY VEHICLE TRAIL, OAHU, HAWAII Key points: 1. Contract awarded for a significant infrastructure project to improve military vehicle access. 2. The project involves road construction, a critical component of military readiness and logistics. 3. Fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and potential for cost certainty. 4. The project duration spans over four years, indicating a substantial undertaking. 5. Awarded to a single contractor, highlighting the need for specialized construction capabilities. 6. Geographic focus on Oahu, Hawaii, supporting a key military installation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $11.1 million for road construction appears reasonable for a project of this scale and duration. Benchmarking against similar military infrastructure projects would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract aims to control costs, but the final expenditure depends on efficient project execution by the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which suggests that while the initial intent was open competition, specific circumstances led to excluding certain sources. This could be due to specialized requirements or prior performance. With three bidders, there was some level of competition, but the exclusion of sources might have limited the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, even with three bidders, may have resulted in a higher price than if all potential qualified sources had been allowed to compete. Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the restricted bidding pool.

Public Impact

Military personnel and operations at Schofield Barracks and related facilities benefit from improved access and logistics. The construction services delivered will enhance the military's operational readiness and training capabilities. The geographic impact is concentrated on Oahu, Hawaii, specifically within the Schofield Barracks area. The project supports the local construction workforce in Hawaii through employment opportunities during the construction phase.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise during construction.
The 'exclusion of sources' aspect warrants further investigation into the justification for limiting competition.
Long project duration increases the risk of scope creep or changes in military requirements.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost control incentives for the contractor.
Award to a single contractor suggests specialized expertise was secured for this specific project.
Project addresses a critical military infrastructure need, enhancing operational effectiveness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction, with a focus on infrastructure development. The market for military construction is substantial, driven by the Department of Defense's continuous need to maintain and upgrade its facilities worldwide. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other road and infrastructure projects awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers or other military branches.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor is likely a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Army, ensuring adherence to contract terms and specifications. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price structure, incentivizing the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may vary in accessibility.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Infrastructure Improvement Projects
Department of Defense Road and Bridge Construction
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
Hawaii Military Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Justification
Long Project Duration Risk
Potential for Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.1 million to ALAN SHINTANI INC. DESIGN BUILD FOR FY05 MCA PN 57406, CONSTRUCT ROAD, SCHOFIELD TO HELEMANO MILITARY VEHICLE TRAIL, OAHU, HAWAII

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALAN SHINTANI 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 $11.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-29. End: 2010-12-30.

What was the specific justification for the 'exclusion of sources' in this full and open competition?

The justification for 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' typically arises when certain capabilities, past performance, or specific technical requirements are deemed essential and only a limited number of contractors can meet them. For a project like military vehicle trail construction, this could relate to specialized engineering knowledge, experience with specific terrain or environmental conditions in Hawaii, or a proven track record on similar high-stakes military infrastructure projects. Without further documentation, the exact reason remains speculative, but it implies a deliberate narrowing of the competitive field based on perceived contractor suitability.

How does the awarded price of $11.1 million compare to similar military road construction projects?

Benchmarking this $11.1 million contract requires comparing it to similar military road construction projects in terms of scope, complexity, location, and duration. Factors like terrain, environmental considerations, and the specific type of road (e.g., heavy-duty vehicle access vs. standard road) significantly influence cost. Projects of similar scale in remote or challenging environments, or those with stringent military-specific requirements, could command higher prices. A detailed analysis would involve examining cost-per-mile or cost-per-square-foot metrics from comparable projects awarded by the Department of Defense or Army Corps of Engineers over a similar timeframe.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a multi-year construction project?

The primary risk for the government with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maximize profit if unforeseen challenges arise, especially over a long duration like this 1553-day project. Conversely, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns due to poor estimation, inefficient management, or unexpected increases in material and labor costs. For the government, the risk is that the fixed price might become uncompetitive if market conditions change significantly or if the initial scope was underestimated. Robust oversight and clear performance standards are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What is the expected impact of this trail construction on military operational efficiency in Hawaii?

The construction of the Schofield to Helemano Military Vehicle Trail is expected to significantly enhance military operational efficiency by providing a dedicated, potentially improved, route for heavy military vehicles. This can reduce transit times, minimize wear and tear on existing public or base roads not designed for such traffic, and improve logistical support for training exercises and deployments originating from or passing through Schofield Barracks. A dedicated trail can also enhance safety by separating military vehicle movements from civilian traffic and other base activities, thereby streamlining operations and readiness.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army in Hawaii?

Historical spending patterns for similar infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army in Hawaii would likely show a consistent investment in maintaining and upgrading its extensive facilities on the island. This includes roads, barracks, training areas, and support infrastructure. Spending levels can fluctuate based on congressional appropriations, modernization priorities, and specific operational needs. Analyzing past awards for road construction, facility upgrades, and land development within Army installations in Hawaii would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the primary contracting firms involved.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2020B KAHAI ST, HONOLULU, HI, 96819

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,097,406

Exercised Options: $11,097,406

Current Obligation: $11,097,406

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9128A05D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline