DOD's $29.2M Design-Build Contract for Industrial Building Construction Awarded to Vetco Contracting Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,207,257 ($29.2M)

Contractor: Vetco Contracting Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-07-17

End Date: 2018-02-23

Contract Duration: 1,682 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN BUILD BUILDING 2074

Place of Performance

Location: FORT DRUM, JEFFERSON County, NEW YORK, 13602

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.2 million to VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC for work described as: DESIGN BUILD BUILDING 2074 Key points: 1. Contract value of $29.2 million for industrial building construction. 2. Awarded to Vetco Contracting Services, LLC. 3. Procurement method: Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources. 4. Contract type: Firm Fixed Price. 5. Delivery Order under a larger contract. 6. Performance period spans from July 2013 to February 2018. 7. Project located in New York. 8. No small business set-aside or subcontracting reported.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $29.2 million for industrial building construction appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope, though specific benchmarks are unavailable without more detailed project specifications. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the majority of the cost risk. However, without comparable project data or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The duration of the contract (over 4 years) for a single delivery order might indicate a complex or phased construction process.

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, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The number of bids received is not specified, making it difficult to fully assess the level of competition. A limited competition may result in less aggressive pricing compared to a truly open solicitation.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of certain sources, even with an intent for open competition, could potentially lead to higher prices for taxpayers if it restricted the number of competitive bids.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of Defense by providing necessary industrial building infrastructure. Services delivered include design and build capabilities for industrial facilities. Geographic impact is concentrated in New York. Workforce implications include construction jobs and specialized design roles. Supports military readiness and operational capabilities through improved facilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may have impacted price discovery.
Exclusion of sources raises questions about the breadth of the bidding pool.
Lack of small business subcontracting data limits visibility into broader economic impact.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Delivery Order structure suggests it's part of a larger, potentially pre-vetted framework.
Project addresses specific industrial building needs for the Department of the Army.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, a critical component of the broader Construction industry. This sector involves the design and erection of specialized facilities for manufacturing, warehousing, and other industrial purposes. Spending in this area is often driven by government infrastructure needs, defense readiness, and private sector expansion. Benchmarks for similar industrial construction projects can vary widely based on size, complexity, and location, but typically involve significant capital investment.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no explicit information regarding small business subcontracting. This suggests that the primary contractor, Vetco Contracting Services, LLC, likely handled the majority of the work or subcontracted to larger entities, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses within the ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and relevant Department of the Army officials. As a Delivery Order under a larger contract, existing oversight mechanisms for the parent contract would likely apply. Transparency is facilitated by public contract databases, but detailed project-specific oversight reports or Inspector General involvement are not explicitly mentioned in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Industrial Facilities
Design-Build Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement
Construction Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition potential
Extended performance period risk
Design definition completeness

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.2 million to VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC. DESIGN BUILD BUILDING 2074

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, 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 $29.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-07-17. End: 2018-02-23.

What is the track record of Vetco Contracting Services, LLC with federal contracts, particularly in industrial building construction?

Vetco Contracting Services, LLC has a history of federal contracting, with this specific contract representing a significant award of $29.2 million for industrial building construction. Analyzing their broader contract portfolio, including past performance on similar projects, contract values, and agencies served, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their capabilities and reliability. Information on any past performance issues, awards, or significant project completions would be crucial for assessing their track record. Without access to a detailed contract history database, it's difficult to definitively assess their overall performance beyond this single data point.

How does the $29.2 million contract value compare to similar industrial building construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

The $29.2 million value for this industrial building construction contract requires comparison against a benchmark of similar projects. Factors such as the specific type of industrial facility (e.g., warehouse, manufacturing plant, maintenance depot), square footage, complexity of design, and geographic location significantly influence cost. Without detailed project specifications or access to a database of comparable federal construction contracts, it is challenging to definitively state whether this value represents excellent, fair, or concerning pricing. However, for a design-build project of substantial size, this figure is not inherently outliers, but requires detailed cost analysis for true benchmarking.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price, design-build contract for industrial building construction?

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price, design-build contract include potential scope creep if the design is not fully defined upfront, contractor underestimation of costs leading to quality compromises, and delays impacting project completion. For the government, the risk lies in ensuring the final design and construction meet all requirements within the fixed price. The 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' aspect introduces a risk related to potentially limited competition, which could affect pricing and innovation. Contractor financial stability and management capacity are also key risk factors, especially given the multi-year performance period.

How effective was the 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' procurement method in achieving competitive pricing for this contract?

The effectiveness of 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' in achieving competitive pricing is difficult to ascertain without knowing the number of bidders and the specific reasons for excluding certain sources. While it aims for broad competition, the exclusion clause inherently limits the bidder pool compared to unrestricted full and open competition. If only a few bidders were eligible, or if the excluded sources were major competitors, the resulting price might be higher than if all capable firms could have participated. A thorough analysis would require understanding the market dynamics and the rationale behind the source exclusion.

What is the historical spending trend for industrial building construction by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for industrial building construction by the Department of the Army is crucial for context. This $29.2 million contract represents a specific investment within that trend. Understanding whether Army spending in this category has been increasing, decreasing, or stable over the past decade would provide insight. Furthermore, examining the average contract size, duration, and types of facilities procured would help determine if this award is typical, unusually large, or small. This contract's value and duration suggest a significant, potentially long-term facility development effort.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (1682 days) for project management and potential cost overruns?

A contract duration of 1682 days (approximately 4.6 years) for a design-build industrial building project implies a complex undertaking, possibly involving phased construction, extensive design development, or integration with other ongoing operations. For project management, this extended timeline necessitates robust oversight, regular progress reviews, and proactive risk mitigation to prevent delays and cost overruns. The firm fixed-price nature means the contractor bears the risk of cost increases due to inflation or unforeseen construction challenges over this long period. However, extended durations can also increase the risk of design obsolescence or changes in operational requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W912DS09R0012

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 26460 NYS ROUTE 37, WATERTOWN, NY, 13601

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Labor Surplus Area Firm, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,207,257

Exercised Options: $29,207,257

Current Obligation: $29,207,257

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DS09D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline