DoD's $22.1M DFAC Conversions and BN HQ Expansions contract awarded to IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,115,528 ($22.1M)

Contractor: Iap-Design Build, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-29

End Date: 2014-01-22

Contract Duration: 846 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DFAC CONVERSIONS AND BN HQ EXPANSIONS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, MUSCOGEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.1 million to IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC for work described as: DFAC CONVERSIONS AND BN HQ EXPANSIONS Key points: 1. The contract value of $22.1 million for DFAC conversions and HQ expansions appears reasonable given the scope. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 846 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. The award was made to IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC, a single entity. 6. The project is categorized under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. 7. The contract was awarded in Georgia, indicating a specific geographic focus.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $22.1 million for DFAC conversions and HQ expansions is within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the primary financial risk, which can be advantageous for the government if costs are managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded prior to the final solicitation. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition, which typically leads to better pricing and value for the government. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The broad competition, despite potential source exclusions, likely resulted in a competitive price for taxpayers. A robust bidding process generally prevents overpayment and encourages efficiency from the awarded contractor.

Public Impact

Military personnel will benefit from improved dining facilities (DFACs) and expanded headquarters (HQ) spaces. The services delivered include construction and renovation of critical base infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Georgia, where the contract was awarded. The project likely involved a significant construction workforce, including skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the 'exclusion of sources' limited competitive options more than anticipated.
Risk of schedule delays in large-scale construction projects, impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets military standards and long-term durability.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition generally leads to better pricing and value.
The contract duration suggests a well-defined project scope and planning.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports military readiness and infrastructure development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects, such as barracks, training facilities, or administrative buildings, to assess cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the prime contractor, IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC, is likely a larger entity, and the contract may not have been structured to specifically benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified work within budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project oversight details are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Government Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of schedule delays in large-scale construction.
Contractor performance risk on a firm-fixed-price contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.1 million to IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC. DFAC CONVERSIONS AND BN HQ EXPANSIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-29. End: 2014-01-22.

What is the track record of IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC with Department of Defense contracts?

A comprehensive review of IAP-DESIGN BUILD, LLC's track record with the Department of Defense would involve analyzing their past performance on similar construction projects. This includes examining contract awards, completion history, any instances of disputes or litigation, and performance evaluations. Understanding their history with firm-fixed-price contracts and large-scale infrastructure development would be crucial. Without specific historical data on this contractor's performance with the DoD, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment, but the award of a $22.1 million contract suggests a level of established capability and trust.

How does the $22.1 million contract value compare to similar DFAC conversion and HQ expansion projects?

Benchmarking the $22.1 million contract value requires comparing it to similar projects in terms of scope, size, location, and complexity. DFAC conversions and HQ expansions can vary significantly. Factors like the number of facilities being converted, the extent of expansion, the specific requirements for modernizing facilities (e.g., kitchen equipment, HVAC, IT infrastructure), and prevailing construction costs in Georgia would influence the price. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is substantial, indicative of a significant undertaking. A detailed comparison with publicly available data on similar DoD construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money evaluation.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for the government?

The primary risk for the government with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maximize profit if unforeseen issues arise or if their initial cost estimates were too low. While FFP shifts cost risk to the contractor, the government is still reliant on the contractor's ability to deliver the specified quality and adhere to the schedule. If the contractor underperforms or defaults, the government may face delays and potentially higher costs to find a replacement. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition also presents a risk if it inadvertently limited the pool of qualified bidders, potentially impacting the final price and quality.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring optimal value?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance broad competition with the need to potentially exclude certain sources deemed unsuitable or non-responsive early in the process. Ideally, this method ensures a competitive environment among qualified bidders, leading to fair pricing and good value. However, the effectiveness hinges on the justification for excluding sources. If exclusions are arbitrary or overly restrictive, they can limit competition, potentially leading to higher prices or reduced innovation. The fact that 5 bidders participated suggests a reasonable level of competition was maintained, but the rationale behind the exclusions is key to assessing the overall value optimization.

What are the historical spending patterns for DFAC conversions and HQ expansions within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending patterns for DFAC conversions and HQ expansions within the Department of Defense are typically characterized by significant, cyclical investments tied to military readiness, modernization efforts, and base infrastructure needs. These projects often fall under the Military Construction (MILCON) budget. Spending can fluctuate based on congressional appropriations, strategic priorities, and the lifecycle of existing facilities. Analyzing past budgets and contract awards for similar projects would reveal trends in contract values, types of contractors engaged, and the geographic distribution of such investments. This specific $22.1 million contract represents a single data point within potentially larger, multi-year spending trends.

What are the implications of the 846-day contract duration on project delivery and cost?

A contract duration of 846 days (approximately 2.3 years) for DFAC conversions and HQ expansions indicates a substantial and complex project. This extended timeline allows for thorough planning, execution, and potential phased delivery of work. For the government, it means a longer commitment but also potentially more manageable project oversight and integration with base operations. For the contractor, it provides a stable revenue stream but also requires sustained resource allocation and risk management over a prolonged period. The extended duration can help mitigate risks associated with rapid construction schedules, potentially leading to better quality and fewer unforeseen cost escalations if managed effectively.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912HN09R0059

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Innovative Architectural Planners, Inc. (UEI: 138785501)

Address: 2740 AIRPORT DR # 300, COLUMBUS, OH, 90

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,115,528

Exercised Options: $22,115,528

Current Obligation: $22,115,528

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN10D0054

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline