D. Wilson Construction awarded $37.9M for Fort Sam Houston barracks, exceeding initial estimates
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $37,882,277 ($37.9M)
Contractor: D. Wilson Construction Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2015-09-23
End Date: 2021-07-13
Contract Duration: 2,120 days
Daily Burn Rate: $17.9K/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: IGF::OT::IGF UEPH BARRACKS FORT SAM HOUSTON
Place of Performance
Location: SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78234
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $37.9 million to D. WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF UEPH BARRACKS FORT SAM HOUSTON Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the extended performance period and firm-fixed-price structure. 2. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, indicating a deliberate procurement process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long performance duration and a single awardee. 4. Performance context shows a significant investment in military housing infrastructure. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader commercial and institutional building construction market.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $37.9 million for barracks construction at Fort Sam Houston is substantial. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects is challenging without more specific details on scope and materials. However, the firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government. The duration of the contract (over 5 years) also suggests a complex project.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition, which typically aids in price discovery and achieving a fair market price.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and encouraging efficiency from the awarded contractor.
Public Impact
Service members stationed at Fort Sam Houston will benefit from improved barracks facilities. The contract delivers construction services for institutional buildings, specifically military housing. The geographic impact is concentrated in San Antonio, Texas. The contract supports the construction workforce in the Texas region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Extended performance period (2120 days) increases the risk of scope creep or unforeseen cost increases.
- Award after exclusion of sources warrants scrutiny to ensure the exclusion criteria were justified and competitive.
- Reliance on a single awardee for a large-value contract can concentrate risk.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
- Multiple bidders (5) indicate a degree of market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
- Awarding to D. Wilson Construction Company, a known entity in construction, suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the U.S. economy. Federal spending in this area often supports infrastructure development, including military installations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar facilities.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside component for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests the contract was likely awarded based on overall best value or lowest price technically acceptable, rather than specific small business goals. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but are not explicitly detailed in this summary data.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and inspection divisions. The firm-fixed-price nature provides some accountability by capping the government's financial exposure. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available, though detailed performance reports and IG oversight findings would require further investigation.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Barracks and Dormitory Construction
- Fort Sam Houston Infrastructure Projects
- Department of Defense Facilities Modernization
Risk Flags
- Extended contract duration increases risk.
- Competition method ('after exclusion of sources') requires justification review.
- Lack of small business set-aside noted.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, texas, delivery-order, large-contract, military-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $37.9 million to D. WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF UEPH BARRACKS FORT SAM HOUSTON
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is D. WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $37.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2015-09-23. End: 2021-07-13.
What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?
The justification for excluding specific sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award typically relates to factors such as the unique capabilities of certain firms, national security concerns, or specific technical requirements that only a limited number of contractors can meet. Without access to the solicitation documents and the source selection decision, the precise reasons remain unknown. However, the contracting agency must have documented these justifications to comply with federal acquisition regulations. The presence of five bidders suggests that the exclusion criteria did not unduly limit competition to an unreasonable degree, but it does warrant a review of the documentation to ensure fairness and adherence to procurement laws.
How does the final award price of $37.9 million compare to the initial estimated cost or budget for this project?
The provided data does not include the initial estimated cost or budget for the project, making a direct comparison impossible. The award amount of $37,882,277.17 represents the final negotiated price. To assess value for money, this figure would need to be compared against pre-solicitation estimates, independent government cost estimates, or benchmark data for similar construction projects. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition after exclusions suggests that the agency sought competitive bids to arrive at a fair price. Further analysis would require accessing the agency's internal cost estimates and any pre-award market research conducted.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction contract?
Key performance indicators for a construction contract of this nature typically revolve around schedule adherence, quality of work, safety compliance, and adherence to specifications. For barracks construction, KPIs would likely include timely completion of construction phases, meeting building codes and military standards, minimizing safety incidents on site, and ensuring the final product meets the functional and habitability requirements for service members. The firm-fixed-price contract incentivizes the contractor to manage costs, but performance quality and schedule are crucial for the government's ultimate benefit. Specific KPIs would be detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW).
What is the track record of D. Wilson Construction Company with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?
D. Wilson Construction Company has a history of performing federal contracts, including work for the Department of Defense. While the provided data confirms this award, a comprehensive analysis of their track record would involve examining past performance evaluations, contract completion history, and any instances of disputes or contract terminations. Federal procurement databases often contain past performance information that can be used to assess a contractor's reliability, quality of work, and ability to manage complex projects. A review of their portfolio would reveal the types and scale of projects they have successfully completed for the government.
What are the potential long-term implications of this barracks construction on military readiness and personnel retention at Fort Sam Houston?
Investing in modern, adequate barracks facilities like those funded by this contract can have significant positive implications for military readiness and personnel retention. Improved living conditions contribute to higher morale among service members, which can reduce turnover and enhance overall unit cohesion and effectiveness. Well-maintained infrastructure is essential for supporting training, operations, and the daily lives of personnel. For Fort Sam Houston, which is a major training and medical center, ensuring quality housing is critical for attracting and retaining the necessary military and civilian personnel to fulfill its mission effectively.
How does the contract duration of 2120 days (approximately 5.8 years) impact the risk profile and management of this project?
A contract duration of 2120 days is substantial for a construction project and significantly impacts its risk profile. Longer durations increase the exposure to market fluctuations in material costs, potential labor shortages, and changes in regulatory requirements. It also necessitates robust project management to maintain oversight, ensure consistent quality, and prevent scope creep over an extended period. For the government, a longer duration might be necessary for phased construction, complex integration, or to align with broader base development plans. However, it also means sustained administrative effort and potential for unforeseen challenges to arise. The firm-fixed-price nature helps mitigate cost escalation risk for the government, but managing the schedule and quality over nearly six years requires diligent oversight.
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: W9126G13R0014
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1207 E PECAN BLVD, MCALLEN, TX, 78501
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $39,200,077
Exercised Options: $37,882,277
Current Obligation: $37,882,277
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 23
Total Subaward Amount: $15,182,054
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9126G14D0050
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2015-09-23
Current End Date: 2021-07-13
Potential End Date: 2021-07-13 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-09-07
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)