DOT awards $22.1M for Air Traffic Control Tower construction, completed on time and within budget

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,157,188 ($22.2M)

Contractor: Danis Building Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2007-08-29

End Date: 2009-03-25

Contract Duration: 574 days

Daily Burn Rate: $38.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ASSET CODE 2010A TAS::69 8107::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: MIAMISBURG, MONTGOMERY County, OHIO, 45342

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $22.2 million to DANIS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ASSET CODE 2010A TAS::69 8107::TAS Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Danis Building Construction Company for a firm-fixed-price contract. 2. Project involved construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower asset. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition. 4. The contract duration was 574 days. 5. The project was completed within the specified timeframe. 6. The final cost was within the awarded amount, indicating good financial management.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $22.1 million for the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower appears reasonable given the scope of such a specialized facility. Benchmarking against similar FAA tower construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fact that the project was completed within the awarded amount suggests effective cost control and execution by the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple interested parties had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this type of construction project. This competitive environment likely contributed to achieving a fair market price for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition ensures that taxpayers benefit from the most competitive pricing available, as contractors vie to offer the best value to win the award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the flying public, who will benefit from the enhanced air traffic control capabilities provided by the new tower. The service delivered is the construction of a critical piece of aviation infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the specific airport where the tower was constructed in Ohio. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the building process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions were encountered during construction.
Risk of delays due to weather or material availability, though the project was completed on schedule.
Ensuring compliance with all FAA safety and construction standards.

Positive Signals

Successful completion within the awarded price and schedule.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Contractor's ability to manage the project to completion.

Sector Analysis

The construction of air traffic control towers falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. This contract represents a specialized infrastructure project within the aviation sub-sector. Spending on such facilities is driven by the FAA's need to modernize and maintain its air traffic control system to ensure safety and efficiency. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale government construction projects or similar aviation infrastructure developments.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data does not indicate any subcontracting plans specifically for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Danis Building Construction Company, likely handled the majority of the work with its own resources or through larger subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any small business participation occurred indirectly.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Accountability measures are typically embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified outcome within the agreed budget and timeline. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific oversight reports for this individual project may not be readily available.

Related Government Programs

FAA Airport Improvement Program
Air Traffic Control Modernization Projects
Federal Building Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Project completed on schedule.
Project completed within budget.
Awarded via full and open competition.
Firm-fixed-price contract type.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $22.2 million to DANIS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ASSET CODE 2010A TAS::69 8107::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DANIS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-29. End: 2009-03-25.

What is the track record of Danis Building Construction Company on federal contracts?

Danis Building Construction Company has a history of performing federal contracts, primarily within the construction domain. While this specific contract for the Air Traffic Control Tower was completed successfully, a comprehensive review of their federal contract history would involve examining past performance ratings, any instances of contract disputes or terminations, and the types and values of other contracts they have held. Analyzing their performance across multiple agencies and project types would provide a more robust understanding of their reliability and capabilities as a federal contractor. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and contractor performance assessment reporting (CPARS) would be crucial for this analysis.

How does the awarded value compare to similar Air Traffic Control Tower construction projects?

Direct comparison of the $22.1 million award for this Air Traffic Control Tower construction is challenging without specific details on the tower's size, complexity, and location. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has undertaken numerous similar projects. For instance, construction costs for towers can vary significantly based on height, technological integration (e.g., radar, communication systems), and site-specific requirements. Generally, large-scale infrastructure projects like this represent substantial investments. The fact that this project was completed within budget and on schedule suggests that the initial cost estimation and subsequent management were effective relative to the project's scope. A detailed benchmark would require comparing specifications, square footage, and technological features of comparable towers.

What were the primary risks associated with this construction project, and how were they mitigated?

Key risks in constructing an Air Traffic Control Tower typically include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil stability, underground utilities), weather delays impacting construction schedules, potential material shortages or price fluctuations, and ensuring strict adherence to FAA safety and operational standards. For this project, the firm-fixed-price contract structure inherently shifts much of the cost risk to the contractor, Danis Building Construction Company. Successful completion on time and within budget suggests effective risk mitigation strategies were employed, likely including thorough site investigations, robust project scheduling with contingency planning, proactive material sourcing, and rigorous quality control processes to meet FAA specifications.

How effective was the competition process in ensuring value for the government?

The contract was awarded under full and open competition with three bidders, which is generally considered a positive indicator for value. This level of competition allows multiple qualified contractors to submit proposals, fostering a price-sensitive environment. The presence of three bidders suggests sufficient market interest and capability for this type of specialized construction. The government likely received competitive bids, and the selection process would have evaluated both price and technical factors to ensure the best value was obtained. The successful completion within the awarded amount further supports the notion that the competition process was effective in securing a fair price.

What is the historical spending pattern for Air Traffic Control Tower construction by the FAA?

Historical spending on Air Traffic Control Tower construction by the FAA reflects ongoing investments in modernizing and maintaining critical aviation infrastructure. While specific aggregate spending figures for tower construction alone are not always isolated in public databases, it is part of the FAA's broader capital improvement budget. Spending fluctuates based on the agency's strategic priorities, infrastructure needs, and available appropriations. The FAA consistently invests in new towers, upgrades to existing ones, and related facilities to enhance safety, capacity, and technological capabilities. This $22.1 million contract represents one such investment within a larger, continuous program of infrastructure development.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3233 NEWMARK DR, MIAMISBURG, OH, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $167,673,714

Exercised Options: $23,173,076

Current Obligation: $22,157,188

Timeline