Department of Defense awards $16.1M contract for BNHQ A & B & C design and construction

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,136,985 ($16.1M)

Contractor: THE Clement Group LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2011-05-30

Contract Duration: 607 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BNHQ A & B & C (PN65934)

Place of Performance

Location: JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.1 million to THE CLEMENT GROUP LLC for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BNHQ A & B & C (PN65934) Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in facility infrastructure. 2. The contract was awarded using full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and manage financial risk. 4. The duration of the contract (607 days) indicates a substantial construction project. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. 6. The award to The Clement Group LLC signifies a key contractor in this domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $16.1 million for the design and construction of BNHQ A, B, and C appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope, though specific benchmarks are unavailable without more detailed project specifications. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to establish a clear cost ceiling. However, without comparable project data or detailed cost breakdowns, a definitive assessment of value for money is challenging. The award amount is a significant figure, implying a substantial undertaking.

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 while the initial solicitation may have had some exclusions, the final award was made through a broad competitive process. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The fact that it was competed broadly is a positive sign for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The broad competition, even with two bidders, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. It ensures that multiple firms had the opportunity to bid, driving down costs.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the upgraded facilities at BNHQ. The contract delivers essential design and construction services for critical infrastructure. The project's geographic impact is centered in Washington, D.C., supporting federal operations. The construction activities will likely involve a workforce of skilled trades and construction professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Dependence on contractor performance for timely completion and quality of construction.
Risk of scope creep if project requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
Potential for delays due to permitting, regulatory approvals, or site conditions.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized.
The contract duration is clearly defined, allowing for project planning.
The project addresses a clear need for facility design and construction.

Sector Analysis

The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector is a vital part of the economy, encompassing the building of non-residential structures such as offices, government facilities, and other institutional buildings. This contract represents a specific instance of federal investment within this sector, contributing to the demand for construction services. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale government construction projects of similar complexity and scale within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best value through broad competition, rather than specifically targeting small businesses for the prime contract. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in this significant construction project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the project management team within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which places the financial risk on the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Government Office Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays due to external factors (e.g., permitting, weather).
Quality control concerns inherent in large construction projects.
Contractor performance risk impacting timely completion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.1 million to THE CLEMENT GROUP LLC. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BNHQ A & B & C (PN65934)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE CLEMENT GROUP LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2011-05-30.

What was the specific nature of the 'exclusion of sources' in the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (CT: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES) indicates that the solicitation was initially restricted or excluded certain potential offerors, but then was opened to full and open competition. This often occurs when an initial limited solicitation or a specific requirement leads to a determination that broader competition is feasible and beneficial. For example, a specific technology or capability might have been initially sought from a limited pool, but it was later determined that other vendors could meet the need, prompting a wider solicitation. The exact reasons for the initial exclusion and subsequent opening are not detailed in the provided data but are crucial for understanding the full competitive landscape.

How does the awarded amount of $16.1 million compare to similar federal building construction projects in the Washington D.C. area?

Comparing the $16.1 million award for the BNHQ A & B & C project requires access to a database of similar federal construction projects in the Washington D.C. area, including their scope, size, and complexity. Without such a benchmark, it's difficult to definitively state if this amount is high or low. However, given the nature of federal projects in a high-cost-of-living area like D.C., and the inclusion of design and construction services, $16.1 million for a significant facility upgrade or new construction is plausible. Factors like square footage, specific building systems (HVAC, security), and site conditions heavily influence costs. A detailed cost analysis would involve comparing cost-per-square-foot metrics for comparable projects.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a construction project of this duration?

While a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide cost certainty, it carries inherent risks for both the government and the contractor, especially for a project spanning 607 days (approximately 20 months). For the contractor, the primary risk is underestimating costs, leading to reduced profit margins or even losses if unforeseen issues arise (e.g., material price increases, labor shortages, unexpected site conditions). For the government, the risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality to maintain profitability, or that the fixed price might be inflated upfront to cover potential contractor risks. Effective project management, clear scope definition, and robust oversight are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the project is delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the local workforce in Washington D.C.?

This contract is expected to have a positive impact on the local workforce in Washington D.C. by creating jobs in the construction sector. The design and construction phases will require a variety of skilled laborers, tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, carpenters), project managers, engineers, and architects. The duration of the contract (607 days) suggests sustained employment opportunities. Furthermore, the economic activity generated by the project can indirectly benefit other local businesses through supply chains and employee spending. The specific number of jobs created would depend on the project's scale and the utilization of local versus non-local labor resources.

How does the contract's end date of May 30, 2011, relate to its start date of September 30, 2009, in terms of project timeline?

The contract start date was September 30, 2009, and the end date was May 30, 2011. This provides a total contract duration of approximately 607 days (or about 20 months). This timeline is consistent with the project's scope, which involves the design and construction of multiple facilities (BNHQ A & B & C). Such projects typically require significant planning, execution, and closeout phases. The duration suggests a substantial undertaking that was planned to span across two fiscal years, allowing for the necessary time to complete all aspects of the design and construction work effectively.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 913 S PERRY ST, MONTGOMERY, AL, 02

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,136,985

Exercised Options: $16,136,985

Current Obligation: $16,136,985

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN08D0029

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline