DoD's $25M Eastside Utilities Infrastructure Project Awarded to ANHAM - ICSS JV

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,170,425 ($25.2M)

Contractor: Anham - Icss JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-09-04

End Date: 2015-02-28

Contract Duration: 907 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCT EASTSIDE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.2 million to ANHAM - ICSS JV for work described as: CONSTRUCT EASTSIDE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE Key points: 1. The contract value of approximately $25.17 million represents a significant investment in utility infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability for the government. 4. The duration of the contract (907 days) indicates a substantial project timeline. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code, highlighting its scope. 6. The award to ANHAM - ICSS JV signifies a specific contractor's capability in this sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $25.17 million for utility infrastructure construction appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for the Department of Defense would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to manage cost overruns, but the final cost relative to initial estimates and market rates for comparable services is key to a full value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally provide a basis for price comparison and selection of the most advantageous offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, potentially leading to lower prices and better value. The presence of three bidders suggests a reasonable market response, but further analysis would be needed to confirm if the competition was robust enough to secure the best possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will receive improved utility infrastructure. The project delivers essential construction services for utility systems, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the Eastside utilities are located, likely a military installation. The contract supports the construction workforce, including skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the fixed-price contract.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage complex utility construction projects effectively.
Risk of schedule delays impacting military operations if project milestones are not met.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive selection process.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs, enhancing operational capabilities.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly for large-scale infrastructure projects, is a significant area of federal spending. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, which includes a wide range of facilities and utility systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal construction awards for utility upgrades or new installations across various agencies, considering factors like project complexity, location, and prevailing market conditions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is not discernible from the data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Utility System Upgrades
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Federal Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Contractor performance and management capability.
Ensuring compliance with safety and environmental regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.2 million to ANHAM - ICSS JV. CONSTRUCT EASTSIDE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ANHAM - ICSS 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 $25.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-04. End: 2015-02-28.

What is the track record of ANHAM - ICSS JV in performing similar large-scale utility construction projects for the Department of Defense?

Assessing the track record of ANHAM - ICSS JV requires a review of their past performance on similar federal contracts. Specifically, one would look for prior awards for utility infrastructure construction, particularly those involving complex systems or significant dollar values. Examining past performance evaluations, any reported disputes or contract terminations, and the successful completion of projects within schedule and budget would provide insight into their capabilities and reliability. Without specific historical data on this joint venture's performance in similar projects, it is difficult to definitively assess their suitability beyond the fact that they were selected through a competitive process.

How does the awarded price of $25.17 million compare to market rates for similar utility infrastructure construction projects?

To compare the awarded price of $25.17 million to market rates, one would need to benchmark it against similar projects. This involves identifying comparable federal or even large private sector utility construction projects completed around the same time, considering factors such as project scope (e.g., type of utilities, scale of work), geographic location (which influences labor and material costs), and contract type. Data from sources like the Construction Cost Index (CCI) or specific cost estimating databases for utility construction could be consulted. A preliminary assessment suggests the price is substantial, reflecting the complexity and duration, but a detailed cost analysis comparing unit prices for labor, materials, and equipment against industry standards would be necessary for a definitive value-for-money conclusion.

What are the primary risks associated with the execution of this utility infrastructure construction contract?

The primary risks associated with this utility infrastructure construction contract include potential cost overruns, despite the firm fixed-price structure, if unforeseen site conditions (e.g., subsurface obstructions, environmental hazards) are encountered. Schedule delays are another significant risk, which could arise from weather disruptions, labor shortages, supply chain issues for critical materials, or contractor performance issues. Furthermore, there's a risk related to the integration and functionality of the new utility systems, ensuring they meet operational requirements and are compatible with existing infrastructure. Finally, ensuring compliance with all relevant safety and environmental regulations throughout the construction process presents an ongoing risk that requires diligent oversight.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in ensuring program effectiveness and cost control for this project?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in controlling costs and ensuring predictability for the government, as it shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. This encourages the contractor to manage resources efficiently and complete the project within the agreed-upon budget. For program effectiveness, the FFP contract incentivizes the contractor to meet the specified performance standards and delivery schedule to maximize profit. However, effectiveness can be compromised if the initial scope is poorly defined, leading to change orders that can increase costs and complexity, or if the contractor cuts corners on quality to maintain profitability. Robust government oversight is still crucial to ensure the work is performed to the required standards and specifications.

What is the historical spending pattern for utility infrastructure construction by the Department of the Army in the region where this contract is being executed?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for utility infrastructure construction by the Department of the Army in the relevant region would provide context for this $25.17 million award. This would involve examining contract databases for similar projects awarded over the past several years, noting the total expenditure, types of projects, and the number and value of contracts awarded annually. Understanding whether this award represents an increase, decrease, or steady level of investment in utility infrastructure can indicate strategic priorities or emerging needs. It also helps in identifying trends in contract values and durations, which can inform future budgeting and procurement strategies for similar infrastructure upgrades.

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: W912ER10R0089

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8075 LEESBURG PIKE STE 760, VIENNA, VA, 22182

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,170,425

Exercised Options: $25,170,425

Current Obligation: $25,170,425

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912ER11D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline