DoD's $22.4M Dawson Enterprises contract for modular facilities awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,444,115 ($22.4M)

Contractor: Dawson Enterprises, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-12-13

End Date: 2019-08-28

Contract Duration: 988 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF MODULAR FACILITIES

Place of Performance

Location: EGLIN AFB, OKALOOSA County, FLORIDA, 32542

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.4 million to DAWSON ENTERPRISES, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF MODULAR FACILITIES Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about price discovery and potential value. 2. The contract's fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the lack of competition limits benchmarking. 3. Performance period of nearly 1000 days suggests a significant project duration. 4. The award falls within the broad construction sector, with specific application to institutional buildings. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating potential missed opportunities for smaller firms. 6. The contract's value is substantial within the context of modular facility construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $22.4 million for modular facilities is difficult to benchmark due to its sole-source nature. Without competitive bids, it's challenging to assess if the pricing is optimal or if it aligns with market rates for similar projects. The fixed-price contract type suggests an attempt to cap costs, but the absence of competition means there's no direct comparison to determine true value for money. Further analysis would require access to cost breakdowns or comparable sole-source awards.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach typically occurs when only one vendor is capable of meeting the requirement, or for other specific justifications. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no opportunity for price competition, which could potentially lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The rationale for the sole-source award would need to be examined to understand the specific circumstances.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to secure the best possible pricing through competitive bidding, potentially resulting in less favorable terms for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The Department of the Air Force benefits from the acquisition of modular facilities. These facilities are likely intended for operational or support purposes within military installations. The contract's geographic impact is specified as Florida (FL), indicating where the facilities will be located or constructed. The construction and deployment of these facilities may have implications for the local workforce in Florida.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated pricing.
Sole-source award raises concerns about justification and necessity.
Limited transparency into the selection process due to non-competitive nature.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type helps to define and control costs.
Award to a single, presumably capable, vendor ensures project execution.
Specific location in Florida identified for facility deployment.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly for commercial and institutional buildings, is a significant area of federal spending. Modular construction offers a potentially faster and more cost-effective alternative to traditional building methods. This contract fits within the broader category of facility acquisition and infrastructure development for the Department of Defense. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other modular building contracts or large construction projects awarded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to Dawson Enterprises, LLC, a single entity, suggests that opportunities for small business participation may have been limited unless they were direct subcontractors to the prime. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award; however, contract award data is generally publicly available through federal procurement databases. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance clauses within the definitive contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Construction
Modular Building Contracts
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Sole-Source Federal Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency regarding the selection process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.4 million to DAWSON ENTERPRISES, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF MODULAR FACILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DAWSON ENTERPRISES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-12-13. End: 2019-08-28.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, which is synonymous with a sole-source award. The specific justification for this determination is not included in the abbreviated data. Typically, sole-source justifications are based on factors such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific national security requirements. Without access to the full contract file or justification documentation, the precise reason for bypassing full and open competition remains unknown. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source awards, as it limits the public's understanding of why competitive processes were not utilized.

How does the per-unit cost of these modular facilities compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining a precise per-unit cost benchmark for these modular facilities is challenging with the provided data. The total award amount is $22.4 million, and the contract duration is 988 days. However, the number of units or the specific size and scope of each modular facility are not detailed. Without this information, calculating a meaningful per-unit cost is impossible. Furthermore, since the contract was sole-source, there are no competitive bids to use as a reference point for market pricing. To establish a benchmark, one would need to know the specifications of the modular units and compare them to similar offerings from other providers in the market, ideally through competitive procurement data.

What is Dawson Enterprises, LLC's track record with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Dawson Enterprises, LLC has been awarded this definitive contract by the Department of the Air Force for modular facilities. The provided data indicates this is one contract with a value of $22.4 million, awarded in late 2016 and ending in mid-2019. To assess their broader track record, one would need to consult federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS to identify all contracts awarded to Dawson Enterprises, LLC. This would reveal the volume, types, agencies, and performance history of their other federal awards. A comprehensive review would help determine their experience in delivering similar projects, their past performance ratings, and any history of contract disputes or issues.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for construction services?

Sole-source awards for construction services carry several potential risks. Primarily, the lack of competition can lead to higher prices than might be achieved through a competitive bidding process, as the government does not benefit from multiple vendors vying for the contract. This can result in a less favorable value for taxpayer money. Additionally, without competitive pressure, there might be reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize performance beyond the minimum contractual requirements. Transparency is also a concern, as the justification for not competing the award may not always be fully transparent to the public. Finally, if the sole source encounters performance issues, the government may have limited alternative options for recourse or replacement.

How does this contract's value compare to other federal spending on modular facilities?

The $22.4 million value of this contract for modular facilities is a significant sum, but its comparability to other federal spending depends heavily on the scope and scale of the project. Federal spending on modular facilities can vary widely, from small, temporary structures to large, complex buildings. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to analyze the number, size, and intended use of the modular units procured under this contract. Then, this data could be benchmarked against other federal contracts for similar modular construction projects awarded across different agencies and timeframes. Without more detailed project specifications, it's difficult to definitively state whether $22.4 million represents high, low, or average spending for this type of procurement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: FA282316R0006

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 900 FORT ST MALL STE 1850, HONOLULU, HI, 96813

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,444,115

Exercised Options: $22,444,115

Current Obligation: $22,444,115

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $10,806,515

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline