Army's $20.17M Alaska construction contract awarded to Kelly-Ryan Inc. for conservation facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,174,137 ($20.2M)

Contractor: Kelly Ryan Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-03-22

End Date: 2015-06-24

Contract Duration: 5,938 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 199906!96CE!0157!CW85 !USA ENGR DISTR ALASKA !DACW8599C0007 !A!*!AW0001 !19990322!20001030!097250823!097250823!097250823!N!0FNR3!KELLY-RYAN INC !2404 BOYER AVE E !SEATTLE !WA!98112!66480!016!02!SAINT PAUL ISLAND !ALEUTIANS WEST !ALASKA !0001!+000000100000!N!N!000000000000!Y219!OTHER CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !1629!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !Y!J!2!003!A!* !D!N!C!* !* !N!B!*!C!*!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!B!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: SAINT PAUL ISLAND, ALEUTIANS WEST County, ALASKA, 99660

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.2 million to KELLY RYAN INC for work described as: 199906!96CE!0157!CW85 !USA ENGR DISTR ALASKA !DACW8599C0007 !A!*!AW0001 !19990322!20001030!097250823!097250823!097250823!N!0FNR3!KELLY-RYAN INC !2404 BOYER AVE E !SEATTLE !WA!98112!66480!016!02!SAINT PAUL ISLAND !ALEUTI… Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract's duration of nearly 16.5 years is exceptionally long for a construction project. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially impacting final cost. 4. The project's location in a remote Alaskan region may present logistical and cost challenges. 5. The specific nature of 'Other Conservation & Development Facilities' requires further clarification for performance assessment.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $20.17 million for construction services in Alaska appears within a reasonable range for large-scale federal projects. However, without specific details on the scope of 'Other Conservation & Development Facilities,' a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The long contract duration could indicate a need for sustained services, but also raises questions about potential cost escalations or inefficiencies over time compared to shorter-term, re-competed contracts. Benchmarking against similar remote construction projects would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The 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 moderate level of competition for this project. While competition is generally positive for price discovery, the specific number of bidders (3) in relation to the project's complexity and remote location warrants further investigation to ensure optimal pricing was achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower bids and potentially better terms than a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially other federal or state agencies requiring conservation facilities in Alaska. The contract delivers construction services for unspecified 'Other Conservation & Development Facilities'. The geographic impact is concentrated in Saint Paul Island, Alaska, a remote Aleutian West location. Workforce implications could include employment opportunities for construction labor, both locally and potentially from outside the immediate area, depending on contractor sourcing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The extremely long contract duration (nearly 16.5 years) raises concerns about potential cost overruns due to inflation, changing requirements, and contractor complacency.
The remote location in Alaska presents significant logistical challenges that could lead to increased costs and delays.
Lack of specific details on the 'Other Conservation & Development Facilities' makes it difficult to assess the true scope and potential risks.
The firm fixed-price nature, while shifting risk, could lead to contractor claims for unforeseen conditions in a challenging environment.

Positive Signals

Awarded via full and open competition, indicating a structured procurement process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming no significant change orders.
The contractor, Kelly-Ryan Inc., has a track record with federal contracts, suggesting some level of established capability.
The contract is for construction, a tangible service with clear deliverables.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically related to facilities development. Federal construction spending is a significant component of government outlays, often driven by infrastructure needs, military base development, and public works. The market for federal construction is competitive, with numerous large and small firms vying for contracts. Projects in remote or challenging environments, such as Alaska, often command higher prices due to logistical complexities and specialized requirements. This contract's value is moderate within the broader federal construction landscape.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates the primary awardee is Kelly-Ryan Inc., which may not qualify as a small business depending on its size standards. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without a small business set-aside or clear subcontracting goals, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract is likely limited, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army, likely managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to deliverables. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
Federal Facilities Construction
Alaska Regional Development Projects
Conservation Infrastructure Projects
Department of Defense Construction Spending

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration
Remote project location
Ambiguous project scope ('Other Conservation & Development Facilities')

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.2 million to KELLY RYAN INC. 199906!96CE!0157!CW85 !USA ENGR DISTR ALASKA !DACW8599C0007 !A!*!AW0001 !19990322!20001030!097250823!097250823!097250823!N!0FNR3!KELLY-RYAN INC !2404 BOYER AVE E !SEATTLE !WA!98112!66480!016!02!SAINT PAUL ISLAND !ALEUTIANS WEST !ALASKA !0001!+000000100000!N!N!000000000000!Y219!OTHER CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !1629!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !Y!J!2!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KELLY RYAN 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 $20.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-03-22. End: 2015-06-24.

What is the specific nature and scope of the 'Other Conservation & Development Facilities' being constructed under this contract?

The provided data classifies the project under 'OTHER CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES' (PSC code C219). This is a broad category that could encompass a wide range of structures and improvements related to environmental conservation, resource management, or regional development initiatives. Without further documentation or detailed project descriptions, it is impossible to ascertain the exact scope. This could range from wildlife habitats, research stations, visitor centers, utility infrastructure for remote areas, or land remediation facilities. The ambiguity necessitates a review of the original contract statement of work (SOW) or related amendments to understand the specific deliverables, performance requirements, and intended outcomes of these facilities.

How does the $20.17 million contract value compare to similar construction projects in remote Alaskan locations?

Comparing the $20.17 million contract value requires identifying similar federal construction projects undertaken in remote Alaskan regions, focusing on the type of facilities and the scale of work. Projects in Alaska often incur higher costs due to logistical challenges, harsh weather conditions, limited infrastructure, and the need for specialized labor and materials. For instance, constructing a remote research outpost or a small utility plant could range from several million to tens of millions of dollars. Without specific benchmarks for comparable 'Conservation & Development Facilities' in similar remote Alaskan settings, it's difficult to definitively state if $20.17 million represents excellent, fair, or concerning value. However, given the inherent cost drivers in Alaska, this figure might be considered within a reasonable range for a substantial project, pending a detailed scope analysis.

What are the potential risks associated with the nearly 16.5-year contract duration for a construction project?

A contract duration of nearly 16.5 years (5938 days) for a construction project is exceptionally long and presents several potential risks. Firstly, the risk of cost escalation due to inflation over such an extended period is significant, even with a firm fixed-price contract, as unforeseen economic shifts can strain contractor resources or lead to claims. Secondly, requirements may evolve over time; the initial scope might become outdated or insufficient, necessitating costly modifications or change orders. Thirdly, long-term contracts can sometimes lead to contractor complacency, potentially impacting quality or efficiency. Lastly, market conditions and material availability can change drastically over 16 years, introducing supply chain risks. This extended duration suggests the project might involve ongoing maintenance, phased development, or services tied to long-term facility operation rather than a single construction event.

Given the 'full and open competition' and 3 bidders, was the pricing likely optimized for taxpayers?

The award under 'full and open competition' with 3 bidders suggests a structured procurement process aimed at achieving competitive pricing. Generally, more bidders lead to greater price competition. However, the optimal number of bidders can vary depending on the complexity and nature of the procurement. For a large, potentially complex construction project in a remote location like Alaska, 3 bidders might represent a reasonable level of competition. It indicates that multiple firms were willing and able to bid, likely driving the price down from what a sole-source or limited competition might yield. To definitively assess if pricing was optimized, one would need to compare the awarded price against independent cost estimates, historical data for similar projects, or analyze the bid spread among the three competitors.

What is Kelly-Ryan Inc.'s track record with similar federal construction contracts, particularly in remote locations?

Kelly-Ryan Inc. has been awarded this definitive contract by the Department of the Army. While the data confirms their status as the awardee, it does not provide a detailed history of their performance on similar federal construction contracts, especially in remote or challenging environments like Alaska. To assess their track record, further research into their past performance ratings (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), other awarded contracts, and any history of claims or disputes would be necessary. Understanding their experience with large-scale infrastructure or facility projects in geographically challenging areas would provide crucial context for evaluating their capability and reliability for this specific Alaskan project.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2404 BOYER AVE E, SEATTLE, WA, 98112

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline