DoD's $23.6M contract for temporary facilities awarded to The Clement Group LLC, a firm-fixed-price agreement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,604,936 ($23.6M)

Contractor: THE Clement Group LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-12-17

End Date: 2011-11-20

Contract Duration: 703 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.6K/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: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES A AND B

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEWIS, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.6 million to THE CLEMENT GROUP LLC for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES A AND B Key points: 1. The contract value of $23.6 million for temporary equipment maintenance facilities appears to be a significant investment for its stated purpose. 2. The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting a specific reason for limiting the initial pool. 3. The duration of 703 days (nearly two years) indicates a substantial construction and setup period for these temporary facilities. 4. The award to The Clement Group LLC, with a reported value of $23.6 million, warrants a closer look at pricing and value compared to similar projects. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to boost small business participation. 6. The contract's geographic location in Washington (WA) may have implications for local construction labor and material costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of temporary equipment maintenance facilities is challenging without specific details on the scope of work and required amenities. However, a $23.6 million price tag for temporary structures suggests a high level of complexity or specialized requirements. Comparing this to the construction costs of permanent facilities of similar size might reveal if the 'temporary' nature justifies a significant portion of the cost. The firm-fixed-price nature provides cost certainty but places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, possibly due to specific pre-qualification criteria or a phased approach to procurement. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'exclusion of sources' suggests a potentially smaller pool than a truly unrestricted full and open competition, which could impact price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: While competition was intended to be broad, the exclusion of certain sources may have limited the number of potential bidders, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing than if all qualified contractors had been allowed to compete without restriction.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense (DoD) and specifically the Department of the Army, who will utilize the temporary facilities for equipment maintenance. The services delivered include the design and construction of two temporary equipment maintenance facilities, designated A and B. The geographic impact is localized to Washington (WA), where the facilities will be constructed and operated. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs during the design and build phases, and potentially ongoing maintenance or operational roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in a 'full and open' competition requires scrutiny to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition.
The significant cost of $23.6 million for 'temporary' facilities warrants a detailed review of the scope and necessity of the construction.
The long duration of 703 days for temporary structures raises questions about the definition of 'temporary' in this context and potential cost efficiencies.
Lack of explicit small business participation details could indicate missed opportunities for subcontracting or direct awards to small businesses.

Positive Signals

The use of a firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the Department of the Army.
The contract was awarded under a form of open competition, suggesting an effort to solicit offers from qualified contractors.
The award to a single contractor, The Clement Group LLC, implies they met the necessary qualifications and offered a competitive proposal.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building construction, is a significant area of federal spending. This contract falls within the broader category of infrastructure development and facility support services. Federal spending in this sector often involves large-scale projects with complex logistical and regulatory requirements. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to similar temporary or permanent facility construction projects undertaken by government agencies or large private entities, considering factors like location, size, and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) field is false and the 'sb' (small business) field is also false. This suggests that the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have been awarded to a small business prime contractor. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless The Clement Group LLC actively pursues small business subcontractors, which is not explicitly detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, but oversight would still focus on schedule adherence, quality of construction, and compliance with contract terms. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Army Facilities Management
Temporary Facility Construction
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Projects
Firm-Fixed-Price Construction Agreements

Risk Flags

Competition Level Justification
Cost Reasonableness for Temporary Structures
Contractor Performance History
Definition of 'Temporary' in Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.6 million to THE CLEMENT GROUP LLC. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES A AND B

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 $23.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-17. End: 2011-11-20.

What specific justifications were provided for excluding certain sources under the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' typically implies that a broad solicitation was issued, but specific categories or types of contractors were intentionally excluded from bidding. This exclusion is usually based on pre-defined criteria related to capability, past performance, security clearances, or specific technical requirements that only a subset of potential contractors could meet. Without access to the solicitation documents or award justification, the precise reasons for excluding certain sources remain unclear. However, such exclusions are generally intended to ensure that only highly qualified entities participate, potentially streamlining the evaluation process or ensuring specialized expertise is available. The rationale must be documented and justifiable to prevent accusations of unfair competition.

How does the $23.6 million cost for temporary facilities compare to market rates for similar construction projects?

Determining the precise market rate comparison for $23.6 million in temporary facilities is complex without detailed specifications of the project's scope, size, materials, and required amenities. However, this figure represents a substantial investment. For context, typical commercial or institutional building construction costs can range widely, from a few hundred dollars per square foot to over a thousand, depending on complexity and location. If these temporary facilities are large or require specialized infrastructure (e.g., climate control, heavy-duty equipment support, advanced security), the cost could be justified. However, if they are relatively simple structures, the cost might be considered high. A thorough benchmark would involve comparing the cost per square foot, or per facility, against recent, comparable government or private sector projects in the same geographic region, accounting for any unique requirements.

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

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty to the government, they shift significant risk to the contractor. For a large construction project like this, potential risks include the contractor underestimating costs, encountering unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), or experiencing material price escalations. If these risks materialize, the contractor may face financial losses, potentially leading to project delays, quality compromises, or even contractor default. The government's primary risk with FFP is paying a potentially inflated price upfront to cover the contractor's risk premium. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure the contractor manages risks appropriately and delivers the project to the specified quality standards and schedule.

What is the track record of The Clement Group LLC in completing similar large-scale government construction projects on time and within budget?

Information regarding The Clement Group LLC's specific track record on similar large-scale government construction projects, particularly those involving temporary facilities, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), project completion history, and any history of claims or disputes on federal contracts. Without this data, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability for a project of this scale and duration. Federal agencies typically vet contractors' past performance extensively before awarding significant contracts, suggesting that The Clement Group LLC likely met the required standards at the time of award.

What are the implications of the 703-day duration for the 'temporary' nature of these facilities?

A duration of 703 days, approximately 23 months, for 'temporary' facilities is quite extensive and warrants clarification. Typically, 'temporary' implies a shorter lifespan, perhaps a few months to a year or two, often associated with specific mission durations or transitional phases. A nearly two-year construction and operational period for temporary facilities raises questions about the definition being used. It could imply that these facilities are needed for a significant interim period, or perhaps the term 'temporary' refers to their non-permanent structural nature rather than their short-term use. This extended duration might also influence the cost-effectiveness analysis, as the longer they are in use, the more their cost approaches that of permanent structures.

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: 3

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: $23,604,936

Exercised Options: $23,604,936

Current Obligation: $23,604,936

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN08D0033

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline