Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC awarded $22M for Air Force building repairs, facing limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,014,791 ($22.0M)

Contractor: Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-06-28

End Date: 2023-04-17

Contract Duration: 2,484 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BASE BID (REPAIR) - B164 REPAIR

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLESTON AFB, CHARLESTON County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29404

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.0 million to DELTA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BASE BID (REPAIR) - B164 REPAIR Key points: 1. Contract value of $22 million for building repairs indicates a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' suggesting a complex procurement process. 3. A definitive contract type implies a long-term agreement for services. 4. The duration of 2484 days points to a substantial, multi-year project. 5. The fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor. 6. The award to a single contractor, Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC, warrants scrutiny of the competitive landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $22 million for building repairs appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar commercial and institutional building construction contracts would be necessary to fully assess value for money. The fixed-price nature of the contract is generally favorable for the government, as it caps the total cost. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for the specific repairs undertaken, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This specific procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The number of bidders (7) is a moderate number, but the exclusion of sources raises questions about the breadth of competition achieved. This could potentially impact price discovery and lead to less competitive pricing than a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, even with an initial open phase, may have resulted in higher costs for taxpayers compared to a scenario with a wider range of bidders. It is crucial to understand the rationale behind the exclusion of sources to ensure fair market access and optimal use of taxpayer funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force, receiving essential building repair services. The contract supports the maintenance and operational readiness of Air Force facilities. The geographic impact is localized to the facilities managed by the Department of the Air Force, likely within South Carolina given the contractor's location. The contract supports jobs within the construction sector, particularly for Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC and its potential subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition due to exclusion of sources may have reduced price competitiveness.
The long contract duration could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost increases if not managed tightly.
Lack of specific details on the nature of repairs makes it difficult to assess the true value and necessity.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a contractor with a stated presence in South Carolina may indicate local economic benefit.
The number of bidders (7) suggests some level of market interest despite the procurement method.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220). This sector encompasses establishments primarily engaged in the construction or remodeling of nonresidential buildings. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government infrastructure needs, commercial development, and facility maintenance. The $22 million award is a significant sum, indicating a large-scale project. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal construction and repair contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'sb' (small business) flag is false and the 'ss' (small business set-aside) flag is false. This suggests the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem, though larger prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and facility management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected. Transparency is facilitated by contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award details. However, detailed performance reports, cost audits, and specific oversight activities are often not publicly available, limiting a full assessment of accountability.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance
Air Force Construction Projects
Commercial Building Renovation Contracts
Federal Infrastructure Repair Programs

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Long contract duration increases risk of scope creep and market volatility.
Lack of detailed public information on specific repairs and performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.0 million to DELTA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LLC. IGF::OT::IGF BASE BID (REPAIR) - B164 REPAIR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DELTA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 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 $22.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-06-28. End: 2023-04-17.

What is the track record of Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing the track record of Delta Mechanical Contractors LLC requires accessing historical federal procurement data. A review of past awards to this contractor would reveal their experience with similar types of projects, their performance history (if documented through past performance evaluations), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. For this specific contract, the award value of $22 million suggests a capacity to handle significant projects. Understanding their prior work with the Air Force or other DoD components would provide context on their reliability and expertise in meeting government requirements. Without specific past performance data, it's difficult to definitively assess their suitability beyond the fact they were awarded this contract.

How does the $22 million contract value compare to similar building repair contracts awarded by the Air Force or other branches of the DoD?

To benchmark the $22 million contract value, one would need to compare it against similar definitive contracts for commercial and institutional building construction awarded by the Department of the Air Force or the broader Department of Defense over a relevant period (e.g., the last 3-5 years). This comparison should consider the scope of work (e.g., major renovations vs. minor repairs), the type of facility, and the geographic location. If similar projects have been awarded for significantly less, it could indicate potential overpricing or a lack of robust competition for this specific award. Conversely, if the scope is particularly complex or the market rates have increased, the value might be justified. Accessing detailed contract line item prices and performance metrics would be crucial for a precise comparison.

What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources in the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' procurement method?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method implies that the agency initially intended to compete the contract broadly but subsequently excluded specific potential offerors. The reasons for exclusion typically fall into categories such as: failure to meet minimum qualifications, past performance issues, inability to meet security requirements, or specific statutory/regulatory limitations. Agencies must document these exclusions and justify them. Understanding these reasons is critical for assessing whether the exclusion was legitimate and did not unduly restrict competition. If the exclusions were arbitrary or not well-documented, it could raise concerns about fairness and potentially lead to protests. The specific justification for excluding sources in this Air Force contract would need to be reviewed in the contract's solicitation documents or award justification.

What are the potential risks associated with a definitive contract lasting nearly 7 years (2484 days)?

A definitive contract with a duration of 2484 days (approximately 6.8 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, the longer the contract term, the greater the risk of scope creep, where the requirements may evolve beyond the original intent, potentially leading to cost increases if not managed carefully. Secondly, market conditions, material costs, and labor rates can fluctuate significantly over such a long period, impacting the contractor's ability to maintain profitability under a fixed-price agreement, or leading to requests for equitable adjustments. Thirdly, maintaining consistent oversight and performance management over an extended period can be challenging for the government. Finally, technological advancements or changes in operational needs could render the original scope of work less relevant or require significant modifications, adding complexity and potential cost.

How does the number of bidders (7) influence the price discovery and overall value for this contract, given the procurement method?

Having seven bidders generally suggests a moderate level of competition. In a truly open market, seven bidders could lead to competitive pricing. However, the procurement method 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' complicates this. If the excluded sources were significant potential competitors, the effective competition might be less robust than seven bidders would imply. The number of bidders influences price discovery by providing a range of offers for the government to evaluate. A higher number of bidders typically increases the likelihood of receiving a lower, more competitive price. With seven bidders, the agency had options, but the quality and competitiveness of those bids depend heavily on the specific market dynamics and the impact of the source exclusions.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: FA441816R0002

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Iron Eagle Group Inc.

Address: 44 WILCLAR ST, WARWICK, RI, 02886

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,058,832

Exercised Options: $22,058,832

Current Obligation: $22,014,791

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline