DoD's $14.86M Design/Build Facility Restoration Contract Awarded to QBS Inc. in Louisiana

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,859,760 ($14.9M)

Contractor: QBS Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-13

End Date: 2009-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,021 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.6K/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 CONSTRUCTION OF THE FULL FACILITY RESTORATION OF THE J DIAMOND USARC

Place of Performance

Location: NEW ORLEANS, PLAQUEMINES County, LOUISIANA, 70146

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.9 million to QBS INC for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD CONSTRUCTION OF THE FULL FACILITY RESTORATION OF THE J DIAMOND USARC Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in facility infrastructure. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate selection process. 3. The duration of over 1000 days indicates a complex and lengthy project. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the government. 5. The project falls under the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific design-build restoration contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and scope comparisons. The total award amount of $14.86 million for a full facility restoration over approximately 3 years suggests a substantial project. However, without comparable projects in the same geographic region or for similar facility types, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was competitive or represented excellent value for money. The firm-fixed-price contract type implies that QBS Inc. bore the risk of cost overruns, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids to account for contingencies.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This specific procurement method indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded prior to the solicitation. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed, but it implies that a pre-qualification or specific requirement might have narrowed the field of potential bidders. With only two bidders identified (implied by 'no': 2), the level of competition was limited, which could potentially impact price discovery and the government's ability to secure the most advantageous pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A limited competition may result in higher prices for taxpayers compared to a truly open competition with a larger number of bidders, as it reduces the pressure to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, which will receive a restored facility to support its operations. The services delivered include design and construction for the full restoration of the J Diamond USARC facility. The geographic impact is localized to Louisiana, where the facility is located. The project will likely involve a significant construction workforce, providing employment opportunities in the region. The restored facility will enhance the operational readiness and capabilities of the military personnel utilizing it.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition could lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into the rationale and fairness of the selection process.
The long project duration increases the risk of unforeseen issues or cost escalations, even with a fixed-price contract.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project aims to fully restore a critical facility, enhancing military readiness.
The award was made under a competitive process, albeit with exclusions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade government facilities across various agencies. Design-build contracts, like this one, are increasingly favored by the government for their potential to streamline project delivery and improve coordination between design and construction phases. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facility restoration or construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies in similar geographic areas.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. The fact that it was awarded to QBS Inc. without explicit mention of small business participation suggests that it may not have been specifically targeted towards small businesses. Further investigation into the subcontracting plan, if one exists, would be necessary to determine the impact on the small business ecosystem. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses will benefit or be involved in this project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and potentially through public reporting on project milestones. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facility Modernization Programs
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
US Army Reserve Readiness Centers
Federal Building and Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price.
Rationale for source exclusion is unclear.
Long project duration increases risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.9 million to QBS INC. DESIGN/BUILD CONSTRUCTION OF THE FULL FACILITY RESTORATION OF THE J DIAMOND USARC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is QBS 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 $14.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-13. End: 2009-06-30.

What was the specific rationale for excluding certain sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement?

The specific rationale for excluding certain sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement is not detailed in the provided data. This procurement method typically involves a pre-qualification phase where potential bidders must meet specific criteria before being invited to submit proposals. Reasons for exclusion could range from failure to meet minimum technical qualifications, past performance issues, financial instability, or specific security requirements. Without further documentation from the solicitation and award process, the exact reasons remain speculative. However, such exclusions can limit the pool of competitors, potentially impacting the final price and the range of innovative solutions considered.

How does the $14.86 million contract value compare to similar facility restoration projects undertaken by the Department of the Army in Louisiana?

Comparing the $14.86 million contract value to similar facility restoration projects by the Department of the Army in Louisiana requires access to a broader dataset of historical contracts. Factors such as the size and scope of the facility, the extent of the restoration required (e.g., structural, electrical, HVAC, cosmetic), and the prevailing market rates for construction services in Louisiana at the time of award (2006) would be crucial for a meaningful comparison. Given that this was a design-build contract for a full facility restoration, the price point could be considered moderate to high depending on the specifics. Without comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represented a competitive price or exceptional value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this facility restoration project, and how was QBS Inc.'s performance evaluated?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this facility restoration project or detail how QBS Inc.'s performance was evaluated. Typically, for construction projects, KPIs might include adherence to schedule, budget compliance (though less critical for firm-fixed-price unless change orders occur), quality of workmanship, safety record, and client satisfaction. Performance evaluations are usually conducted through contract close-out reports and may involve ratings on aspects like technical performance, management, and cost control. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that meeting the defined scope and quality standards within the agreed price is a primary measure of success.

What is the historical spending pattern for facility restoration and construction by the Department of the Army in Louisiana over the past decade?

Analyzing the historical spending pattern for facility restoration and construction by the Department of the Army in Louisiana over the past decade would require extensive data mining of federal procurement records. This would involve filtering contracts by agency (Department of the Army), geographic location (Louisiana), and service category (construction, facility maintenance, restoration). Trends could reveal whether spending in this sector has increased or decreased, identify major contractors, and highlight the types of projects most frequently funded. Such an analysis could provide context for the $14.86 million award, indicating if it aligns with historical investment levels or represents a significant deviation.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price design-build contract for a full facility restoration, and how were they mitigated?

Potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price design-build contract for a full facility restoration include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if initial cost estimates were too low, or conversely, inflating the initial bid to cover unforeseen complexities. For the government, the risk lies in the contractor potentially having less incentive to innovate or suggest cost-saving measures once the price is fixed. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract language defining quality standards, clear scope of work, performance bonds, and rigorous government oversight during construction. The 'exclusion of sources' might also be a risk mitigation strategy if it ensured only highly qualified contractors were considered, though it limits competition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 1548 LINDEN AVE S, ALLIANCE, OH, 06

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,859,760

Exercised Options: $14,859,760

Current Obligation: $14,859,760

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912QR04D0016

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline