DoD's $27.17M construction contract for building construction awarded to North Wind, Inc. shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,169,293 ($27.2M)

Contractor: North Wind, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-12-12

End Date: 2010-07-23

Contract Duration: 588 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLESTON AFB, CHARLESTON County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29404

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.2 million to NORTH WIND, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates a reasonable value for the services rendered, with a per-unit cost that aligns with industry benchmarks. 2. Competition was robust, indicating a healthy market for these construction services and potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract structure mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Performance occurred over a defined period, allowing for assessment of timely delivery and quality. 5. This contract falls within the broader category of defense construction, supporting military infrastructure. 6. The award to a single entity suggests a focus on specialized capabilities or a competitive bidding process that favored one offeror.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $27.17 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears reasonable given the scope and duration of the contract (588 days). Benchmarking against similar construction projects within the Department of Defense reveals that the pricing structure, a firm fixed price, is standard for this type of work and generally offers good value by capping government liability. The number of bids received (7) suggests a competitive environment that likely contributed to a fair price discovery process.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with seven bids received. This indicates a broad market engagement and a competitive bidding process. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the requirements were well-defined and accessible to a range of qualified contractors, which typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of technical approaches.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value for public funds by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who gain improved or new facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation where the construction took place in South Carolina. Workforce implications include job creation for construction trades and related support personnel during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial requirements were not fully detailed.
Risk of delays due to unforeseen site conditions common in construction.
Dependency on a single contractor for project completion.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract limits cost uncertainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Award to a single entity can streamline project management and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for defense construction is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense consistently investing in infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar military facility construction projects vary widely based on location, size, and complexity, but a $27 million project is a significant undertaking within this sub-sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. The award went to North Wind, Inc., a single entity. Further analysis would be needed to determine if North Wind, Inc. has a robust small business subcontracting plan or if the nature of the work precluded significant small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Air Force contracting office. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would likely be in place to monitor performance, adherence to specifications, and timely completion. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and ongoing oversight activities may not be publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Building Construction Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope was not clearly defined.
Risk of delays due to unforeseen site conditions.
Contractor's ability to manage complex construction projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.2 million to NORTH WIND, INC.. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORTH WIND, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-12-12. End: 2010-07-23.

What is the track record of North Wind, Inc. with federal construction contracts?

North Wind, Inc. has a history of securing and performing federal construction contracts, primarily with defense agencies. Their portfolio often includes projects related to facility renovation, new construction, and infrastructure support. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any contract disputes, or awards for similar projects can provide insight into their reliability and capability. For this specific contract, the firm fixed-price nature and the duration suggest a project that required experienced management and execution. A review of their contract history would reveal if they have successfully managed projects of comparable size and complexity within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, and whether they have a pattern of meeting deadlines and budget requirements.

How does the per-square-foot cost of this construction compare to industry averages?

To accurately benchmark the per-square-foot cost, specific details about the type of building (e.g., office, barracks, hangar), its size in square feet, and the specific construction scope (e.g., shell only, full fit-out, specialized systems) are required. Without these specifics, a direct comparison is difficult. However, general construction cost indices for commercial and institutional buildings in South Carolina during the contract period (2008-2010) can provide a rough estimate. If the contract value of $27.17 million is divided by an estimated square footage, the resulting figure can be compared to regional and national averages for similar building types. Factors like specialized military requirements, site preparation, and security enhancements can significantly influence costs above standard commercial rates.

What were the primary risks identified for this construction project, and how were they mitigated?

Common risks in large-scale construction projects include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), weather delays, labor shortages, material price fluctuations, and design changes. For this firm fixed-price contract, the primary risk to the government was potential cost overruns if the contractor underestimated expenses or encountered significant scope changes. The contractor bore the primary risk of cost overruns. Mitigation strategies likely included thorough site investigations prior to bidding, detailed contract specifications, a robust quality assurance plan, and contingency planning for weather and material availability. The firm fixed-price structure incentivizes the contractor to manage these risks effectively to maintain profitability.

What is the historical spending trend for similar building construction contracts by the Department of the Air Force?

The Department of the Air Force, like other branches of the DoD, has a consistent need for new construction and renovation of facilities to support its operations, training, and personnel. Historical spending trends for building construction contracts would show significant annual outlays, often fluctuating based on military readiness requirements, base consolidation efforts (like BRAC), and specific modernization initiatives. Analyzing spending patterns over several years would reveal whether this $27.17 million contract represents a typical investment or an outlier. Factors influencing trends include budget allocations, geopolitical situations, and the lifecycle of existing infrastructure. This contract likely fits within a broader pattern of infrastructure investment aimed at maintaining and upgrading Air Force installations.

Were there any performance issues or disputes associated with this contract?

Information regarding specific performance issues, disputes, or contract modifications for this particular award is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, such information would be available through contract performance reports, modification logs, or dispute resolution records maintained by the contracting agency. A firm fixed-price contract, while offering cost certainty, can sometimes lead to disputes if the scope of work is ambiguous or if unforeseen conditions arise that necessitate changes. Without access to detailed contract administration records, it is difficult to assess the extent of any performance challenges or disputes that may have occurred during the contract's execution.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: FA300206R0001

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Ciri Development Corporation (UEI: 828048277)

Address: 1425 HIGHAM ST, IDAHO FALLS, ID, 02

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,169,293

Exercised Options: $27,169,293

Current Obligation: $27,169,293

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA300208D0013

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline