Department of the Army awards $10.87M for building repair and renewal, highlighting long-term infrastructure needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,869,301 ($10.9M)

Contractor: John J Kirlin, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-26

End Date: 2018-05-23

Contract Duration: 3,892 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: REPAIR/RENEWAL EFFORT TAS::21 2020::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98431

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.9 million to JOHN J KIRLIN, INC for work described as: REPAIR/RENEWAL EFFORT TAS::21 2020::TAS Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, can incentivize contractors to manage costs effectively while ensuring a profit. 3. The duration of the contract (3892 days) indicates a significant, long-term commitment to infrastructure maintenance. 4. The award was a delivery order, implying it was part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 5. The contract was awarded to JOHN J KIRLIN, INC, a company with a history of government contracts. 6. The project falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a broad category encompassing various facility maintenance needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work and the nature of the repairs. However, the total award amount of $10.87 million over nearly 11 years suggests a moderate annual expenditure for building maintenance. Comparing this to similar large-scale facility repair contracts would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure means the government pays the actual costs plus a negotiated fixed fee, which can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if not closely monitored.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this specific delivery order. A competitive process generally helps in achieving fair market prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down prices through bidding and ensures the government receives the best possible value for its investment in infrastructure repair.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the improved facilities. The contract delivers essential repair and renewal services for government buildings, ensuring operational readiness and safety. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the facilities are located, likely within a military installation. The contract supports jobs within the construction sector, including skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently by the contracting officer.
The long duration of the contract (over 10 years) increases the risk of scope creep or changes in requirements over time.
Limited information on the specific repairs makes it difficult to assess the true value for money achieved.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The contractor, JOHN J KIRLIN, INC, has experience in government contracting, suggesting familiarity with federal requirements.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs, ensuring the longevity and functionality of government facilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses a wide range of activities, from new construction to maintenance and repair of various types of facilities. Government spending on facility maintenance and repair is a consistent area of expenditure, crucial for maintaining operational capabilities and asset value. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing annual budgets for facility management across different federal agencies or large private sector organizations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a specific set-aside. However, the prime contractor, JOHN J KIRLIN, INC, may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses as part of their overall business strategy or if required by other contract clauses not detailed here. The absence of a small business set-aside means the opportunity was open to all eligible contractors, regardless of size.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program officials within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance requirements outlined in the contract and the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, which requires detailed cost reporting. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, where basic contract information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Army Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM)
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Construction and Engineering Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or obsolescence.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts require diligent oversight to manage costs effectively.
Limited detail on specific repairs makes value assessment difficult.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.9 million to JOHN J KIRLIN, INC. REPAIR/RENEWAL EFFORT TAS::21 2020::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHN J KIRLIN, 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 $10.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-26. End: 2018-05-23.

What is the specific scope of work covered by this $10.87 million repair and renewal effort?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'REPAIR/RENEWAL EFFORT' within the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' category. However, the specific details of the repairs, such as the types of buildings, the nature of the damage or required renewal (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing, HVAC), and the exact locations, are not available in the abbreviated data. This level of detail is typically found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS), which would outline the precise tasks, deliverables, and performance standards expected from the contractor. Without this information, it's difficult to fully assess the scope and complexity of the work performed.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types for similar building repair projects?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset or involves a high degree of uncertainty, making fixed-price contracts less suitable. In CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF generally offers less cost certainty for the government, as the final cost can fluctuate based on actual expenses. However, it can incentivize contractors to perform efficiently to maximize their fixed profit margin. For routine maintenance or well-defined repair projects, FFP contracts might offer better value. For complex renovations or situations where unforeseen issues are likely, CPFF can provide necessary flexibility, but requires robust government oversight to control costs.

What is the track record of JOHN J KIRLIN, INC with Department of Defense contracts, particularly in building construction and repair?

JOHN J KIRLIN, INC has a history of receiving contracts from the Department of Defense. While the abbreviated data does not provide a comprehensive history, the fact that they were awarded this significant delivery order suggests they have met the necessary qualifications and past performance requirements. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine their contract history in more detail, looking at the number of awards, contract values, performance ratings, and any instances of disputes or contract terminations. Experience with similar projects, especially those involving Cost Plus Fixed Fee structures and long durations, would be particularly relevant for evaluating their suitability for this type of work.

Given the 10-year duration, what mechanisms are in place to ensure the contract remains relevant and cost-effective over its lifecycle?

The long duration of this contract (3892 days, approximately 10.6 years) necessitates robust contract management and oversight. Mechanisms to ensure relevance and cost-effectiveness typically include: 1) Periodic reviews of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) to ensure it aligns with current needs and technological advancements. 2) Options for contract modifications or equitable adjustments to account for unforeseen circumstances, changes in requirements, or inflation, which are usually negotiated within defined parameters. 3) Performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are monitored throughout the contract term. 4) Regular communication between the contractor and the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) to address issues proactively. 5) The fixed fee component helps stabilize profit expectations, but the government's ability to audit costs is crucial for cost control.

How does the $10.87 million total award compare to typical annual spending on building repair and renewal by the Department of the Army?

The $10.87 million total award for this specific repair and renewal effort represents a significant investment over its nearly 11-year period. To contextualize this amount, it's essential to compare it against the Department of the Army's overall annual budget for Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM). The Army typically manages billions of dollars annually for maintaining its vast inventory of buildings and infrastructure. Therefore, this $10.87 million contract, while substantial for a single award, likely represents a portion of the Army's broader strategy for addressing deferred maintenance and infrastructure upgrades across its installations. Its significance lies in its long-term commitment to a specific set of facilities rather than its proportion of the total annual FSRM budget.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912DY02R0004

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 515 DOVER ROAD STE 2400, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,869,301

Exercised Options: $10,869,301

Current Obligation: $10,869,301

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DACA8703D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline