Department of the Army awards $10.16M contract for commercial building construction in Missouri

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,162,077 ($10.2M)

Contractor: John J Kirlin, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-16

End Date: 2009-03-25

Contract Duration: 1,286 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEONARD WOOD, PULASKI County, MISSOURI, 65473

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to JOHN J KIRLIN, INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1286 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty for the government. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major defense spender. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract was awarded in 2005 and completed in 2009, providing historical context.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $10.16 million for commercial and institutional building construction over approximately 3.5 years appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scope. Without specific details on the scope of work, such as square footage, type of facility, or specific construction services rendered, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense during the mid-2000s would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation of pricing and value.

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 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, a competitive process was utilized, which is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to bid, which can lead to more competitive pricing and a better allocation of resources.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely the residents and users of the constructed or renovated facilities. The contract delivered services related to commercial and institutional building construction. The geographic impact is localized to Missouri, where the construction took place. The project would have supported jobs in the construction sector within Missouri.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract did not adequately account for all project variables.
Risk of delays if unforeseen site conditions or material shortages occurred during the construction period.
Quality control challenges inherent in large-scale construction projects.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a structured procurement process.
Fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the awarding agency.
Contract completed within its original timeframe (2005-2009), suggesting effective project management.

Sector Analysis

The construction industry is a significant sector for federal spending, encompassing a wide range of projects from infrastructure to facility development. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a segment that includes the building of offices, schools, hospitals, and other non-residential structures. Federal spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, or expand government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar government construction endeavors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no indication of small business subcontracting requirements (ss: false). This suggests that the primary contractor, JOHN J KIRLIN, INC, likely handled the majority of the work internally or with larger subcontractors. The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract were limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures would include adherence to the contract terms, performance standards, and delivery schedules. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
General Services Administration (GSA) Building Construction
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns on fixed-price contracts if not managed carefully.
Construction projects are susceptible to delays due to weather or unforeseen site conditions.
Adequacy of competition level for optimal price discovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to JOHN J KIRLIN, INC. See the official description on USAspending.

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 $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-16. End: 2009-03-25.

What was the specific scope of work for this commercial and institutional building construction contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' under NAICS code 236220. However, the specific scope of work, such as the type of facility (e.g., office building, barracks, hospital wing), the square footage, the specific construction services (e.g., new build, renovation, repair), and the exact location within Missouri, is not detailed in the provided summary. A more granular understanding of the project's requirements would be necessary to fully assess its complexity and value.

How does the $10.16 million award compare to similar construction projects by the Department of the Army during the 2005-2009 period?

Comparing the $10.16 million award requires access to historical contract data for similar construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army between 2005 and 2009. Factors such as project size (square footage), type of facility, geographic location, and complexity of construction would need to be matched. Without this comparative data, it is difficult to definitively state whether this contract represented a particularly high or low cost. However, for a multi-year construction project, $10.16 million is a substantial but not extraordinary sum for a federal agency.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) and how did the contractor perform against them?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established for this contract or the contractor's performance against them. Typically, construction contracts include metrics related to schedule adherence, quality of work, safety compliance, and adherence to budget. The contract's completion date (March 25, 2009) suggests it was completed within its intended timeframe, which is a positive indicator. However, a detailed performance review would require access to contract performance reports or post-award evaluations.

What is the track record of JOHN J KIRLIN, INC with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of the Army?

JOHN J KIRLIN, INC has a history of receiving federal contracts, as evidenced by this award. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine their complete contract history with the Department of the Army and other federal agencies. This would involve looking at the number of contracts awarded, their total value, the types of services provided, and any performance ratings or past performance evaluations. A review of their history could reveal patterns of successful project completion, on-time delivery, and adherence to budget, or conversely, instances of disputes, delays, or performance issues.

Were there any significant risks identified during the procurement or execution of this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not explicitly detail risks identified during the procurement or execution phases. However, common risks in large construction projects include unforeseen site conditions, material cost fluctuations, labor availability, weather delays, and scope creep. As this was a firm fixed-price contract, the contractor bore the primary financial risk associated with cost overruns. Mitigation strategies would typically involve thorough site investigations prior to bidding, robust contract language, contingency planning, and active project management by the government's contracting officer's representative (COR).

How does the competition level (3 bidders) for this contract typically influence pricing and value for taxpayers?

A competition level of three bidders suggests a moderately competitive environment. While more bidders could potentially lead to lower prices due to increased market pressure, three bidders still provide a basis for price discovery and comparison. This level of competition generally indicates that the government received multiple proposals, allowing for a selection based on a balance of price and technical qualifications. It is generally more advantageous for taxpayers than a sole-source or limited competition scenario, as it reduces the risk of paying an inflated price.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 515 DOVER RD STE 2200, ROCKVILLE, MD, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,110,890

Exercised Options: $10,110,890

Current Obligation: $10,162,077

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DACA0103D0004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline