Army's $15.2M facility maintenance contract awarded to ACC Construction Co. for Kentucky operations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,194,282 ($15.2M)

Contractor: ACC Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-02

End Date: 2010-11-26

Contract Duration: 542 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: UNIT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TEMF

Place of Performance

Location: FORT CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN County, KENTUCKY, 42223

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.2 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: UNIT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TEMF Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of facility maintenance services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Contract duration of 542 days is within typical ranges for this type of service. 5. Services provided are essential for maintaining operational readiness of Army facilities. 6. Geographic focus on Kentucky indicates localized impact of contract spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $15.2 million over 542 days for facility maintenance is benchmarked against similar contracts for institutional building construction. While specific per-unit costs are not detailed, the overall award amount seems aligned with the scope of work, which includes maintenance and repair of facilities. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the contractor can manage their expenses effectively.

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 two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, two offers are sufficient to establish a competitive baseline and ensure the government receives a reasonable offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the assurance that the contract was awarded through a process designed to solicit the best possible price and value from qualified contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, ensuring the upkeep of its facilities. Services delivered include maintenance and repair of institutional buildings, crucial for operational continuity. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kentucky, supporting local economic activity through the contractor's operations. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction and maintenance personnel within the Kentucky region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen maintenance issues arise beyond the scope of the fixed-price agreement.
Ensuring consistent quality of maintenance services throughout the contract duration requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure provides budget predictability.
Full and open competition process aims to secure competitive pricing.
Contract duration is sufficient to establish a working relationship and achieve project goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Spending in this sector supports the development, maintenance, and repair of various facilities, including government installations. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar facility maintenance contracts within the Department of Defense can vary widely based on location, size, and complexity of the facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This means the primary contract was awarded to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver services as specified. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Facilities Maintenance
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Services
Base Operations Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen maintenance issues arise.
Ensuring consistent quality of maintenance services requires diligent oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.2 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. UNIT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TEMF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 $15.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-02. End: 2010-11-26.

What is the historical spending pattern for facility maintenance by the Department of the Army in Kentucky?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for facility maintenance by the Department of the Army in Kentucky requires access to detailed procurement data over multiple fiscal years. While this specific contract represents $15.2 million for a 542-day period, broader trends would involve aggregating data for similar services across various Army installations within the state. Factors influencing historical spending include the age and condition of facilities, military readiness requirements, and budget allocations. Without access to a comprehensive database of past contracts, it is difficult to establish a precise historical spending trend. However, it is reasonable to assume that consistent investment in facility maintenance is a recurring requirement for the Army to ensure the operational integrity and safety of its infrastructure.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to similar facility maintenance contracts awarded by other military branches?

A direct per-unit cost comparison is challenging without specific line-item details for services rendered under this contract (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per repair hour). The provided data indicates a total award of $15,194,281.86 for 542 days of service. To benchmark effectively against other military branches, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar facility types (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, maintenance depots) and geographic regions. Factors such as labor costs, material availability, and local economic conditions significantly influence pricing. Generally, firm fixed-price contracts aim for competitive pricing through open competition, suggesting this award is likely within a reasonable range, but a definitive comparison would require a detailed analysis of multiple contract awards across different services.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance on this contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for facility maintenance contracts typically focus on service delivery, response times, quality of work, and adherence to safety standards. For this specific contract, KPIs might include metrics such as the percentage of scheduled maintenance tasks completed on time, the average response time for emergency repairs, the number of reported deficiencies or callbacks related to completed work, and compliance with environmental and safety regulations. The contract's performance work statement (PWS) would detail these specific requirements and the methods for measuring performance. Successful performance would be reflected in meeting or exceeding these established KPIs, while failure to do so could result in contractual remedies or penalties.

What is the track record of ACC Construction Co., Inc. in performing similar government contracts?

ACC Construction Co., Inc. has been awarded this $15.2 million contract by the Department of the Army. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on similar government contracts, particularly those involving facility maintenance and construction for federal agencies. This would involve reviewing contract databases for previous awards, contract values, durations, and any reported performance evaluations or past performance questionnaires. A positive track record would indicate successful completion of previous projects, adherence to schedules and budgets, and satisfaction from government clients. Conversely, a history of performance issues, disputes, or contract terminations would raise concerns about their capability to execute this current contract effectively.

What is the potential risk associated with the firm fixed-price contract type for this facility maintenance service?

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type for facility maintenance lies with the contractor. ACC Construction Co., Inc. assumes the responsibility for all costs incurred in performing the work. If unforeseen issues arise, such as unexpected repair needs, increased material costs, or labor shortages, the contractor must absorb these additional expenses, potentially impacting their profit margin or even leading to a loss. For the government, the main risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality or scope to manage costs, especially if the initial price was set too low. Robust oversight and clearly defined performance standards in the contract are crucial to mitigate this risk and ensure the government receives the required level of service.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 635 NW FRONTAGE RD, AUGUSTA, GA, 30907

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,194,282

Exercised Options: $15,194,282

Current Obligation: $15,194,282

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN07D0042

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline