DoD's $24.5M Army Aviation Training Facility Renovation Awarded to Engineering Design Technologies, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,481,421 ($24.5M)

Contractor: Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-09-17

End Date: 2015-08-15

Contract Duration: 697 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.1K/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: BASE BID: CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION OF AIT

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GORDON, RICHMOND County, GEORGIA, 30905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.5 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: BASE BID: CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION OF AIT Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure modernization. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process, though specific details are limited. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of nearly two years indicates a substantial scope of work. 5. Geographic concentration in Georgia may have localized economic impacts. 6. The exclusion of sources clause warrants further investigation into the procurement process.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the $24.5 million cost for the renovation of an Army Aviation Training Facility is challenging without detailed project specifications and comparable facility data. However, the base bid of $24,481,421 suggests a substantial investment. The firm-fixed-price contract type is standard for construction projects, aiming to control costs. Without more granular data on the scope of work, materials, and labor, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the price appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded prior to the solicitation. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'exclusion of sources' clause suggests a potentially narrowed field compared to truly full and open competition. This approach can sometimes be justified for specific technical requirements or past performance, but it may limit price discovery and potentially increase costs.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have benefited from the broadest possible competition, potentially leading to a higher price than if all qualified sources were allowed to bid without exclusion.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the renovated training facility. The contract delivers essential construction and renovation services to improve military training infrastructure. The project's geographic impact is concentrated in Georgia, potentially benefiting local construction labor and material suppliers. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the Georgia region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause raises concerns about the extent of competition and potential fairness.
Lack of detailed cost breakdowns makes it difficult to assess the value for money comprehensively.
The contract duration of nearly two years could be subject to delays and cost overruns if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract structure transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project addresses a critical need for modern military training facilities.
Awarding to a single contractor can streamline project management and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This specific project, focused on military training infrastructure, is a niche within this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale government building projects, considering factors like square footage, complexity, and location. The $24.5 million award is a significant sum, indicative of a major renovation or construction effort.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary focus or requirement for this specific contract, as it was not set aside for small businesses. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the prime contractor, Engineering Design Technologies, Inc., is likely a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this particular award may be minimal unless they engage small businesses as subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense. Accountability measures are typically managed through contract administration, performance reviews, and adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Army Training and Doctrine Command Infrastructure
Federal Building Renovations
Construction Services for Government Agencies

Risk Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to source exclusion.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown for value assessment.
Risk of project delays and cost overruns inherent in long-duration construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.5 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. BASE BID: CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION OF AIT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $24.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-09-17. End: 2015-08-15.

What is the track record of Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

A comprehensive review of Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.'s federal contract history would require access to detailed contract databases. However, based on the award of this $24.5 million contract for the Army Aviation Training Facility renovation, it is evident they have the capacity and qualifications to handle large-scale government projects. Further analysis would involve examining past performance on similar projects, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their overall performance ratings. Understanding their experience with firm-fixed-price contracts and projects of similar duration and complexity would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise in executing this specific task.

How does the $24.5 million cost compare to similar Army Aviation Training Facility renovations or comparable institutional building projects?

Directly comparing the $24.5 million cost without detailed project specifications (e.g., square footage, scope of renovation, specific systems upgraded) is challenging. However, for large-scale institutional or specialized facility renovations, this figure appears within a plausible range. To provide a robust benchmark, one would need to identify similar projects awarded by the Army or other federal agencies for aviation training facilities or comparable complex buildings. Factors such as geographic location (labor and material costs vary significantly), the age and condition of the existing facility, and the extent of modernization (e.g., HVAC, IT infrastructure, structural upgrades) would be critical for a meaningful comparison. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the contractor is responsible for managing costs within this budget.

What are the specific risks associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method for this contract?

The primary risk associated with 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is the potential for reduced competition, which can lead to higher prices for taxpayers. While the intent is to ensure qualified bidders participate, the exclusion of certain sources, even if justified, limits the pool of potential offerors. This can reduce price pressure and potentially allow less competitive bids to be accepted. Furthermore, the justification for excluding sources needs to be robust to ensure fairness and prevent potential protests. The risk lies in whether the exclusion was truly necessary for technical reasons or if it inadvertently stifled broader market participation, impacting overall value.

What is the expected effectiveness of the renovated Army Aviation Training Facility in enhancing pilot training and operational readiness?

The effectiveness of the renovated facility hinges on the scope and quality of the upgrades. Assuming the renovation addresses critical infrastructure needs, modernizes training equipment interfaces, and improves the overall learning environment, it is expected to significantly enhance pilot training. Modern facilities can support more advanced simulation technologies, improve instructor efficiency, and provide a better overall experience for trainees, potentially leading to faster skill acquisition and higher retention rates. Improved operational readiness is a direct outcome, as well-trained pilots are crucial for mission success. The nearly two-year duration suggests a comprehensive overhaul, aiming for long-term improvements in training capabilities.

How has federal spending on military construction and renovation projects like this trended over the past five years?

Federal spending on military construction and renovation projects has generally remained robust, driven by the need to modernize aging infrastructure, adapt to new technological requirements, and maintain operational readiness across all branches of the armed forces. While specific figures fluctuate annually based on budget allocations and strategic priorities, there has been a consistent emphasis on upgrading facilities. Factors such as geopolitical tensions, evolving threats, and the need for advanced training environments contribute to sustained investment. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in specific types of construction (e.g., barracks, training facilities, R&D labs) and the average contract values within this category, providing context for the $24.5 million award.

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: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1705 ENTERPRISE WAY SE STE 200, MARIETTA, GA, 30067

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,481,421

Exercised Options: $24,481,421

Current Obligation: $24,481,421

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN11D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline