Department of the Army awards $16.4M contract for academic facility upgrades, highlighting industrial building construction needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,358,998 ($16.4M)

Contractor: John Bowman, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-04

End Date: 2011-07-15

Contract Duration: 679 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: M - UPGRADE ACADEMIC FACILITY PHASE 5

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80903

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.4 million to JOHN BOWMAN, INC. for work described as: M - UPGRADE ACADEMIC FACILITY PHASE 5 Key points: 1. The contract value of $16.4 million for academic facility upgrades suggests a significant investment in educational infrastructure. 2. The fixed-price contract type indicates a defined scope and budget, potentially mitigating cost overruns for the government. 3. The duration of 679 days points to a substantial project requiring careful planning and execution. 4. The award to John Bowman, Inc. represents a specific contractor's role in fulfilling federal infrastructure requirements. 5. The contract falls under industrial building construction, a sector crucial for supporting various government operations and research. 6. The 'After Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation into the rationale for limited bidding.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $16.4 million for academic facility upgrades appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope and duration. Without specific benchmarks for academic facility upgrades of this nature, a direct comparison is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the pricing was determined upfront, which can be a good indicator of value if the scope was well-defined. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per unit of upgrade to similar projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

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 intent was to compete, certain sources were excluded, leading to a limited competition. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed here but could relate to specialized capabilities, prior performance, or other factors. A limited competition typically results in fewer bidders than full and open competition, which can impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher prices compared to a scenario with numerous competing offers.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, limited competition can mean less assurance of achieving the lowest possible price. While the government aims for best value, fewer bidders may reduce the downward pressure on costs, potentially resulting in a higher expenditure than if the contract had been widely competed.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the students, faculty, and staff of the academic institution where the facility is located, who will gain improved learning and research environments. The services delivered include the upgrade and modernization of academic facilities, potentially encompassing structural improvements, technological enhancements, and updated amenities. The geographic impact is specific to the location of the academic facility, likely within Colorado given the 'sn': 'COLORADO' field. The workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, project managers, engineers, and other professionals involved in the building and renovation process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' raises concerns about the breadth of competition and potential for higher costs.
Lack of detailed justification for source exclusion could indicate a risk of favorit-ism or missed opportunities for cost savings.
The fixed-price contract, while beneficial for budget control, can be a risk if the scope was not perfectly defined, leading to change orders.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
The project duration of 679 days suggests a comprehensive approach to the facility upgrades.
The award to a single contractor, John Bowman, Inc., implies a focused execution plan.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, which is a broad category encompassing the construction of facilities used for manufacturing, processing, storage, and research. Federal spending in this sector is critical for maintaining and upgrading government infrastructure, including research facilities, training centers, and operational buildings. The market size for federal construction is substantial, with significant annual outlays. This specific contract for academic facility upgrades represents a niche within the broader construction market, focusing on enhancing educational and research capabilities for the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) are both false. This suggests the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless John Bowman, Inc. actively engages small businesses as subcontractors. Without subcontracting plans, it's difficult to assess the broader implications for small business involvement in federal construction projects of this scale.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, ensuring adherence to contract terms, quality standards, and timelines. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract, which penalizes deviations from the agreed-upon cost and scope. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed justifications for competition exclusions might not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Academic Facility Modernization
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Federal Building Construction
Research Facility Upgrades

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Justification
Potential for Higher Costs Due to Limited Bidders
Scope Definition Risk in Fixed-Price Contracts
Contractor Performance History Verification Needed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.4 million to JOHN BOWMAN, INC.. M - UPGRADE ACADEMIC FACILITY PHASE 5

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHN BOWMAN, 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 $16.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-04. End: 2011-07-15.

What is the track record of John Bowman, Inc. with the Department of Defense and similar academic facility upgrade projects?

Assessing the track record of John Bowman, Inc. requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those with the Department of Defense and for academic or research facility construction. Key indicators include on-time and on-budget completion rates, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be crucial. A strong track record suggests a lower risk for this current project, while a history of issues might warrant closer scrutiny of their capabilities and management approach for this $16.4 million upgrade.

How does the $16.4 million cost compare to similar academic facility upgrade projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $16.4 million cost requires identifying comparable federal academic facility upgrade projects in terms of size, scope, complexity, and geographic location. Factors such as square footage, type of upgrades (e.g., structural, technological, HVAC), and the specific academic discipline supported would need to be considered. A comparative analysis would involve calculating cost per square foot or cost per functional unit. If this contract's cost per unit is significantly higher than similar projects, it could indicate potential overpricing or scope creep, whereas a lower cost might suggest efficient procurement or a simpler project.

What were the specific reasons for excluding other potential sources in this 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award?

The rationale behind excluding potential sources in a 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award is critical for understanding the competition dynamics. Typically, exclusions are based on specific technical requirements, unique capabilities, or past performance issues with other contractors. Without access to the detailed justification documents, it's difficult to ascertain the precise reasons. However, such exclusions can limit the pool of bidders, potentially impacting price competition and the government's ability to secure the most cost-effective solution. Investigating these reasons is key to ensuring fair competition and taxpayer value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this academic facility upgrade project, and how will their achievement be measured?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for this academic facility upgrade project would likely focus on project completion within the 679-day timeframe, adherence to the firm fixed-price budget of $16.4 million, and meeting specified quality standards for construction and facility functionality. Measurable outcomes could include the successful integration of new technologies, achievement of energy efficiency targets, and compliance with all relevant building codes and safety regulations. The government's COR would be responsible for monitoring these KPIs through regular site inspections, progress reports, and final acceptance testing to ensure the project delivers the intended improvements to the academic facility.

What is the historical spending trend for academic facility upgrades by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Analyzing historical spending trends for academic facility upgrades by the Department of the Army would involve examining contract awards over several fiscal years. This would reveal patterns in contract values, types of upgrades, and the frequency of such projects. Understanding this trend helps contextualize the $16.4 million award; for instance, is it an outlier in terms of cost, or is it typical for major facility overhauls? It also informs future budgeting and planning for similar infrastructure investments. A consistent or increasing trend might indicate a growing need for facility modernization within the Army's educational institutions.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 967 E FILLMORE ST, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,358,998

Exercised Options: $16,358,998

Current Obligation: $16,358,998

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9128F07D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline