Nearly $17.4M awarded for 19 miles of highway rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing in Colorado

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,397,456 ($17.4M)

Contractor: A & S Construction CO.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2009-12-09

End Date: 2011-10-09

Contract Duration: 669 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF CO PRA ROMO 10(7), TRAIL RIDGE ROAD. THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RESURFACING (3R) OF APPROXIMATELY 19 MILES.

Place of Performance

Location: ESTES PARK, LARIMER County, COLORADO, 80517, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $17.4 million to A & S CONSTRUCTION CO. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF CO PRA ROMO 10(7), TRAIL RIDGE ROAD. THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RESURFACING (3R) OF APPROXIMATELY 19 MILES. Key points: 1. The contract focuses on essential 3R (rehabilitation, restoration, resurfacing) work for a significant stretch of roadway. 2. Awarded to A & S Construction Co., the contract represents a substantial investment in transportation infrastructure. 3. The project duration of 669 days suggests a complex scope of work requiring careful planning and execution. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially encouraging efficiency. 5. The project is situated in Colorado, indicating a focus on regional infrastructure improvements. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310 points to the specific sector of highway, street, and bridge construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable projects of identical scope and location. However, the total award of approximately $17.4 million for 19 miles of 3R work suggests a cost of roughly $915,000 per mile. This figure needs to be assessed against the specific conditions of the roadway, the complexity of the rehabilitation required, and prevailing construction costs in the region during the contract period (2009-2011). Without more granular data on the scope of work (e.g., depth of resurfacing, structural repairs needed), a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

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. This method generally promotes a competitive environment, encouraging multiple contractors to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The presence of 3 bids (no=3) suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers indicate that the opportunity was attractive enough to elicit interest from multiple firms in the construction sector.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it is expected to yield the most competitive pricing by allowing a wide range of qualified contractors to participate and bid.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are users of the Trail Ridge Road in Colorado, who will experience improved road conditions and safety. The project delivers essential infrastructure maintenance, ensuring the longevity and usability of a key transportation artery. The geographic impact is localized to the specific 19-mile segment of Trail Ridge Road within Colorado. The project supports the construction workforce in the region through employment opportunities for laborers, engineers, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise during the extensive rehabilitation work.
Risk of project delays due to weather or contractor performance, impacting the timeline for road improvements.
The firm-fixed-price contract, while shifting risk, could lead to disputes if the scope of work is not clearly defined or changes significantly.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a robust process for selecting the most capable and cost-effective contractor.
The firm-fixed-price contract structure incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and complete the project within budget.
The specific focus on 3R work indicates a strategic approach to maintaining and extending the life of existing infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

The construction of highways, streets, and bridges falls under the broader infrastructure sector, a critical component of national and regional economies. This contract, specifically for highway rehabilitation, is part of ongoing efforts to maintain and upgrade existing transportation networks. The market for such services is typically characterized by a mix of large, established construction firms and smaller, specialized contractors. Spending in this sector is often influenced by government funding cycles, economic conditions, and the need to address aging infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing per-mile costs for similar rehabilitation projects across different regions and over various time periods.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (sb=false). While the prime contractor, A & S Construction Co., may be a small business, the award process itself did not include a small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting performance. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific prime contract award is not detailed, though the prime contractor itself could be a small business contributing to that ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a division of the Department of Transportation. Mechanisms likely included regular progress reports from the contractor, site inspections by government representatives, and potentially quality assurance testing. Accountability measures are inherent in the contract terms, particularly the firm-fixed-price structure which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed project-specific oversight documentation may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Highway System Improvement Programs
National Highway Performance Program
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act
State and Local Government Road Maintenance Funds

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting public access and project completion.
Contractor performance risk in delivering quality rehabilitation work.
Adequacy of competition level for optimal price discovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $17.4 million to A & S CONSTRUCTION CO.. CONSTRUCTION OF CO PRA ROMO 10(7), TRAIL RIDGE ROAD. THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE REHABILITATION, RESTORATION, AND RESURFACING (3R) OF APPROXIMATELY 19 MILES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is A & S CONSTRUCTION CO..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-09. End: 2011-10-09.

What is the track record of A & S Construction Co. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Transportation?

Assessing the track record of A & S Construction Co. requires accessing federal contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. A review would focus on their past performance on similar highway construction and rehabilitation projects, their history of on-time and within-budget completion, and any documented performance issues or disputes. Understanding their experience with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) specifically would be crucial. A positive track record with similar projects would indicate a lower risk for this contract, while a history of issues might raise concerns about their capacity to deliver effectively on this $17.4 million project.

How does the per-mile cost of this contract compare to similar highway rehabilitation projects awarded around the same time (2009-2011)?

To compare the per-mile cost of approximately $915,000 ($17.4M / 19 miles), one would need to research similar 3R projects awarded by the FHWA or state DOTs between 2009 and 2011. Factors influencing cost include geographic location (labor and material costs), complexity of the work (e.g., pavement condition, need for structural repairs, drainage improvements), and contract type. If comparable projects in similar regions cost significantly less per mile, it might suggest this contract was priced higher than the market average. Conversely, if costs were in line or higher due to specific project challenges, it would provide context for the awarded amount.

What were the primary risks identified for this specific project, and how were they mitigated?

Specific risks for a project involving 19 miles of highway rehabilitation could include unforeseen subsurface conditions (e.g., poor soil stability, underground utilities), extreme weather impacting work schedules, material price fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price contract), and potential environmental compliance issues. Mitigation strategies would likely involve thorough pre-construction site investigations, detailed geotechnical surveys, robust project scheduling with contingency for weather delays, clear communication protocols with utility companies, and adherence to all environmental regulations. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract also places the onus on the contractor to manage and absorb many of these risks.

How effective was the 'full and open competition' process in ensuring a competitive price for this contract?

The effectiveness of full and open competition in ensuring a competitive price is typically gauged by the number of bids received and the variance between them. With three bids submitted for this contract, it suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bids could potentially lead to a lower price, three offers indicate that the project was sufficiently attractive to multiple qualified contractors. Analyzing the bid spread (difference between the lowest and highest bid) would provide further insight. A narrow bid spread might suggest a well-defined scope and competitive market, while a wide spread could indicate uncertainty or differing interpretations of the requirements.

What is the historical spending trend for highway rehabilitation projects by the Federal Highway Administration in Colorado?

Analyzing historical spending trends for highway rehabilitation by the FHWA in Colorado would involve examining contract awards over several fiscal years. This would reveal patterns in the volume and value of such contracts, identifying periods of increased or decreased investment. Such an analysis could highlight whether this $17.4 million contract represented a typical, above-average, or below-average investment for the region during that timeframe. Understanding these trends helps contextualize the significance of individual contract awards within the broader federal investment strategy for Colorado's transportation infrastructure.

Were there any performance issues or contract modifications during the execution of this project?

Information regarding performance issues or contract modifications for this specific project (awarded 2009-2011) would typically be found in contract administration records, which may not be fully public. Contract modifications (change orders) are common in construction to address unforeseen conditions, scope adjustments, or design changes. Significant modifications could impact the final cost and duration. Performance issues might be reflected in contract close-out documentation or performance ratings. Without access to these detailed administrative records, it's difficult to definitively state whether performance issues or substantial modifications occurred.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: DTFH6809B00044

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 839 MACKENZIE AVE, CANON CITY, CO, 81212

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,397,456

Exercised Options: $17,397,456

Current Obligation: $17,397,456

Timeline