Fort Bragg Operations Facility contract awarded to Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. for over $33 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,465,310 ($33.5M)

Contractor: Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-10-23

End Date: 2016-03-22

Contract Duration: 1,246 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PROJECT NUMBER 76364, SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS FACILITY, FORT BRAGG, NC

Place of Performance

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

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.5 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: PROJECT NUMBER 76364, SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS FACILITY, FORT BRAGG, NC Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor assumes the risk for cost overruns. 3. The project duration of 1246 days points to a significant construction undertaking. 4. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense. 5. The project is located in North Carolina, impacting the local construction sector and workforce. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests it was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $33,465,310 for a construction project of this scale requires further benchmarking against similar facilities. Without specific details on the scope of work, such as square footage or specialized features, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. The number of bids received (6) provides a baseline for competition, but the final price relative to estimated costs would offer a clearer picture of value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that the solicitation was broadly advertised, but specific sources were initially excluded before a full competition was opened. Six bids were received, suggesting a reasonable level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. The presence of multiple bidders helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who will utilize the new operations facility. The project delivers essential infrastructure for battalion operations, enhancing military readiness and capabilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, supporting the local economy through construction activities. The construction phase likely created temporary employment opportunities for the local workforce in the skilled trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the initial scope was not fully defined, despite the firm fixed-price contract.
The 'Exclusion of Sources' aspect of the competition warrants a review to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets the long-term operational needs of the battalion.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract places cost control responsibility on the contractor.
Awarded under a competitive process, indicating potential for good pricing.
Project addresses a clear operational need for the U.S. Army.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports military infrastructure development, which is crucial for national defense. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar military facilities or government buildings constructed around the same period and in similar geographic locations. The market for large-scale construction projects is often characterized by a mix of large prime contractors and specialized subcontractors.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the 'sb' flag is false. This indicates that small businesses were not specifically targeted for this prime contract. However, the prime contractor, Engineering Design Technologies, Inc., may utilize small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the work, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. 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

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction
Fort Bragg Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly.
Contractor's past performance history needs verification.
Clarity on 'Exclusion of Sources' rationale is needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.5 million to ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. PROJECT NUMBER 76364, SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS FACILITY, FORT BRAGG, NC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGINEERING DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $33.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-10-23. End: 2016-03-22.

What was the specific scope of work for the SOF Battalion Operations Facility, and how does its cost compare to similar facilities?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for the SOF Battalion Operations Facility beyond it being a 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' project. To assess its cost against similar facilities, one would need to compare metrics such as cost per square foot, the complexity of the design, and any specialized requirements (e.g., security, technology integration). Benchmarking against other Army or SOF facility constructions awarded around 2012-2016 in similar climates and regions would be necessary. Without this granular information, a precise comparison is not feasible, but the $33.4 million award for a battalion-level facility suggests a substantial construction effort.

What is the track record of Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

The provided data identifies Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. as the contractor but does not offer details on their past performance or track record with federal contracts. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their contract history, including the number and value of previous awards, types of services rendered, past performance evaluations, and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. Examining their experience with similar construction projects, especially for military or government clients, would be crucial to understanding their capability and reliability for this specific project.

How did the 'Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition affect the final price and contractor selection?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential sources were initially excluded. The specific reasons for this exclusion are not detailed in the provided data. To understand the impact on price and selection, one would need to know which sources were excluded and why. If highly capable or competitive firms were excluded, it could have potentially led to a higher price or a less optimal contractor selection. Conversely, if the exclusions were based on specific technical requirements or security clearances, they might have been necessary to ensure project success.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction project, and how was performance monitored?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used for this construction project. Typically, for construction contracts, KPIs would include adherence to schedule, budget compliance (especially relevant for fixed-price contracts where the contractor bears cost risk), quality of workmanship, safety record, and meeting all technical specifications outlined in the contract. Performance monitoring would likely involve regular site inspections, progress reports from the contractor, and oversight by Army Corps of Engineers or designated contracting officers' representatives.

What is the historical spending pattern for SOF Battalion Operations Facilities or similar infrastructure at Fort Bragg?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending patterns for SOF Battalion Operations Facilities or similar infrastructure at Fort Bragg. To analyze historical spending, one would need to access databases covering multiple years and identify all contracts related to facility construction and maintenance at that installation. This would allow for trend analysis, identification of major spending periods, and comparison of costs for similar types of facilities over time.

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

The provided data does not explicitly list risks identified during the bidding or execution phases of this contract. However, common risks in large construction projects include unforeseen site conditions, material cost fluctuations, labor shortages, weather delays, and design changes. Given the firm fixed-price nature, the primary risk to the government is ensuring the contractor delivers the facility as specified. Mitigation strategies would typically involve thorough pre-bid site investigations, robust contract language, contingency planning, and active project management oversight by the contracting agency.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912HN09R0059

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1705 ENTERPRISE WAY SE STE 200, MARIETTA, GA, 30067

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,465,310

Exercised Options: $33,465,310

Current Obligation: $33,465,310

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN11D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline