DOT awards $10.1M for CAMI renovation, Terra Construction secures contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,116,426 ($10.1M)

Contractor: Terra Construction, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2003-12-22

End Date: 2013-03-21

Contract Duration: 3,377 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CAMI RENOVATION

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, CANADIAN County, OKLAHOMA, 73127

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $10.1 million to TERRA CONSTRUCTION, LLC for work described as: CAMI RENOVATION Key points: 1. Contract value of $10.1 million for renovation services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a broad search for qualified contractors. 3. The contract duration of 3377 days (over 9 years) suggests a long-term project or phased approach. 4. The contract was awarded by the Federal Aviation Administration, a sub-agency of the Department of Transportation. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 7. The award was made in Oklahoma, suggesting a specific geographic focus for the renovation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.1 million for a renovation project spanning over 9 years requires careful benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money. However, the extended duration might indicate a complex project or a series of phased renovations, which could impact overall cost-effectiveness. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the initial pricing was considered acceptable, but long-term project management will be key to ensuring value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was broad, certain sources may have been excluded for specific reasons. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors. The fact that it was not a sole-source award is positive for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition, even with some exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to bid, potentially driving down costs and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the users and operators of the CAMI facility, who will experience improved infrastructure. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, focusing on renovation. The geographic impact is centered in Oklahoma, where the renovation work is being performed. The project will likely have implications for the local construction workforce in Oklahoma, providing employment opportunities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long contract duration (over 9 years) could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost increases if not managed meticulously.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation into the reasons for exclusion and potential impact on competition.
The firm fixed-price contract, while shifting risk, could lead to disputes if the scope of work changes significantly over the long term.

Positive Signals

The use of 'Full and Open Competition' indicates an effort to secure the best possible offer.
The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
The contract is being managed by the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency with significant experience in managing large infrastructure projects.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building construction (NAICS 236220), is a significant part of federal spending. This contract falls within the broader category of infrastructure development and maintenance. Federal spending in this sector often involves large, long-term projects requiring specialized expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific type and scale of renovation, but projects of this magnitude are common across various federal agencies for facility upgrades and modernization.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically mandated for small businesses through a set-aside program. However, the prime contractor, Terra Construction, LLC, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract, depending on their own business practices and the nature of the work required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mechanisms likely include contract performance reviews, milestone tracking, and financial audits. Transparency is typically managed through contract databases like FPDS-NG. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program
Department of Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure Projects
General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Construction Contracts
Military Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Long Contract Duration
Potential for Scope Creep
Exclusion of Sources in Competition
Firm Fixed Price Risk Over Extended Period

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $10.1 million to TERRA CONSTRUCTION, LLC. CAMI RENOVATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TERRA CONSTRUCTION, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-12-22. End: 2013-03-21.

What specific renovations are included in this $10.1 million contract, and how does the scope align with the 9-year duration?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'CAMI RENOVATION' under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). However, the specific details of the renovation scope are not included. A 9-year duration (3377 days) for a fixed-price contract suggests either a very extensive renovation project, a phased approach to modernization, or potentially a contract that includes ongoing maintenance or operational support alongside the initial construction. Further analysis would require access to the contract's statement of work (SOW) to understand the precise deliverables and how they justify the extended timeline and cost. Without this, it's difficult to assess if the value is commensurate with the scope.

How does the $10.1 million contract value compare to similar renovation projects managed by the FAA or DOT?

Benchmarking this $10.1 million contract requires comparing it to similar-sized renovation projects for institutional or commercial buildings undertaken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Department of Transportation (DOT). Factors such as the type of facility (e.g., airport terminal, administrative building), the extent of renovation (e.g., structural, cosmetic, systems upgrade), and the geographic location (which influences labor and material costs) are crucial for a meaningful comparison. Given the 9-year duration, it's essential to compare it against projects with similar timelines or phased approaches. A preliminary assessment suggests that $10.1 million is a substantial amount, implying a significant scope of work, but without detailed project specifics, a definitive value-for-money assessment relative to peers is challenging.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract lasting over 9 years?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract lasting over 9 years presents several risks. Primarily, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which could incentivize them to cut corners on quality or scope if not closely monitored. Conversely, if the initial cost estimate was too high, taxpayers may have overpaid. For the government, the risk lies in potential disputes if the scope of work needs to change significantly over such a long period, potentially leading to change orders that could negate the fixed-price benefit. Inflationary pressures over 9 years could also impact the contractor's profitability and potentially lead to performance issues if not adequately accounted for in the initial pricing. Robust oversight and clear change management processes are critical.

What does the 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type imply for this contract?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause suggests that while the government intended to compete the contract broadly, certain potential offerors were intentionally excluded from the bidding process. The reasons for exclusion must be documented and justified, often relating to specific capabilities, past performance issues, security concerns, or the need for specialized technology or expertise that only a limited number of entities possess. This exclusion can limit the pool of bidders, potentially reducing the level of competition compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition. It raises a flag for further investigation into the justification for exclusions and whether it unduly restricted competition, potentially impacting the final price and selection.

How has the Department of Transportation historically allocated funds for similar building renovation projects?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar building renovation projects by the Department of Transportation (DOT) would involve examining past contracts awarded under relevant NAICS codes (like 236220) and for facility maintenance and upgrades. This would reveal trends in contract values, durations, competition levels, and the types of contractors engaged. Understanding these patterns can help contextualize the $10.1 million CAMI renovation contract, indicating whether it is typical, unusually large, or small for the agency's needs. It can also highlight shifts in DOT's procurement strategies or priorities over time regarding infrastructure improvements.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7429 NW 84TH ST, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,116,426

Exercised Options: $10,116,426

Current Obligation: $10,116,426

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline