DoD's $10.97M contract for construction services awarded to MASON & HANGER, INC. in 2003

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,968,701 ($11.0M)

Contractor: Mason & Hanger, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-08-29

End Date: 2006-02-20

Contract Duration: 906 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28307

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.0 million to MASON & HANGER, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for construction services, indicating a need for infrastructure development or maintenance. 2. The contract was competed on a full and open basis, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs by establishing a set price for the work. 4. The contract duration of 906 days points to a significant project scope. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, this contract falls under the defense sector's infrastructure spending. 6. The contract was awarded in 2003 and completed in 2006, providing historical context for spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.97 million for construction services is moderate. Without specific details on the scope of work, it is difficult to benchmark against similar projects. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to manage costs, but the ultimate value for money depends on the quality of execution and adherence to the original scope. Further analysis would require comparing the per-square-foot cost or specific deliverable costs to industry standards for similar construction projects.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this particular contract. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bids would typically lead to more robust price discovery and potentially better pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with two bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging more favorable pricing compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios. It signals that the agency sought multiple offers to ensure a reasonable price.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the completed construction services, likely enhancing military facilities or infrastructure. The services delivered are commercial and institutional building construction, contributing to the physical assets of the defense sector. The geographic impact is likely localized to the area where the construction took place, potentially within North Carolina. The contract supported jobs in the construction industry, including skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed price did not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
Risk of delays impacting military readiness or operational capabilities if the project timeline was not met.
Quality control concerns inherent in any large-scale construction project.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps to establish cost certainty for the government.
The contract was successfully completed, indicating that the project was delivered.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, a significant area of federal spending, particularly for defense and infrastructure projects. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of construction services, awarding billions annually for building new facilities, renovating existing ones, and maintaining infrastructure. The market for commercial and institutional building construction is vast, with numerous firms capable of undertaking such projects. Benchmarking this contract's value would require comparing it to similar military construction projects in terms of scope, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' field is false and 'ss' (small business set-aside) is also false. This suggests the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses. While there's no explicit information on subcontracting, larger prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized tasks, but the extent of this contract's impact on the small business ecosystem is not directly ascertainable from the provided data.

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 generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Federal Building and Infrastructure Spending
Commercial Building Construction Services

Risk Flags

Moderate Competition Level
Fixed-Price Contract Risk
Potential for Scope Creep (if not managed tightly)
Historical Contract Data (requires further analysis for performance)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.0 million to MASON & HANGER, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MASON & HANGER, 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 $11.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-08-29. End: 2006-02-20.

What was the specific scope of construction services provided under this contract?

The contract data indicates the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220, which corresponds to Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. This broad category encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings such as office buildings, warehouses, factories, and public institutions. Without more specific contract line item details or project descriptions, the exact nature of the construction (e.g., new build, renovation, specific facility type) remains unspecified. However, given it was awarded by the Department of the Army, it likely pertained to military installations or support facilities.

How does the awarded amount of $10.97 million compare to typical construction contracts of similar scope for the Department of the Army?

Benchmarking the $10.97 million award requires understanding the specific scope of work. For large-scale military construction, this amount could represent a significant project, such as building a new barracks complex, a training facility, or a major renovation. However, it could also be a smaller component of a larger infrastructure program. The Department of the Army, through the Army Corps of Engineers, manages a vast portfolio of construction projects, with individual contract values ranging from thousands to billions of dollars. A more precise comparison would necessitate analyzing contracts with identical or highly similar NAICS codes, project types (e.g., new construction vs. renovation), and geographic locations, considering inflation and market conditions between award dates.

What were the key performance indicators or deliverables expected under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or deliverables for this contract. However, for a Commercial and Institutional Building Construction contract (NAICS 236220) awarded by the Department of the Army, typical performance expectations would include adherence to construction blueprints and specifications, meeting quality standards for materials and workmanship, timely completion of project milestones, and compliance with safety regulations. Deliverables would likely involve the completed construction of the specified facility or renovation, along with associated documentation such as as-built drawings, warranties, and inspection reports.

What is the track record of MASON & HANGER, INC. with federal construction contracts?

MASON & HANGER, INC. has a significant history of performing federal construction contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense. A review of federal procurement data would reveal numerous awards to this contractor across various agencies and project types, often involving large-scale military construction and infrastructure. Their experience typically includes design-build projects, renovations, and new construction for various military branches. Assessing their overall track record would involve examining past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the successful completion rate of their federal awards.

Were there any notable risks or challenges associated with this specific contract?

While the provided data doesn't explicitly list risks, construction projects of this magnitude inherently carry risks such as unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), weather delays, material price fluctuations, labor shortages, and design changes. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract means that MASON & HANGER, INC. would bear the primary financial risk for cost overruns unless changes were formally approved through contract modifications. The Department of the Army would have managed risks through oversight, quality assurance inspections, and potentially performance bonds.

How has federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction evolved since this contract was awarded?

Federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction, particularly by the Department of Defense, has generally remained substantial since 2003, fluctuating based on geopolitical events, national security priorities, and budget allocations. While specific figures require detailed analysis of historical budget data and contract awards, the trend has often involved significant investments in modernizing military infrastructure, building new facilities, and maintaining existing ones. Factors like increased global security concerns and technological advancements in military operations can influence the types and scale of construction projects undertaken, impacting overall spending levels.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DAY & Zimmermann Group Inc., the (UEI: 007913486)

Address: 7270 W 162ND ST, STILWELL, KS, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $47,726

Exercised Options: $47,726

Current Obligation: $10,968,701

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline