DoD's $16.17M P590 Child Development Center contract awarded to BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,171,767 ($16.2M)

Contractor: BIG Desbuild Joint Venture Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-10

End Date: 2012-10-03

Contract Duration: 877 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 23

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: P590 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: QUANTICO, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22134

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.2 million to BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC for work described as: P590 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER Key points: 1. The contract value of $16.17 million for a child development center appears to be within a reasonable range for construction projects of this nature. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate procurement strategy, though the specific reasons for exclusion warrant further examination. 3. The contract duration of 877 days (approximately 2.4 years) indicates a substantial construction timeline. 4. The fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor, potentially leading to cost certainty for the government. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code, placing it within a significant sector of federal contracting. 6. The award to a joint venture, BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC, may indicate a strategy to combine expertise or capacity for complex projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $16.17 million for the P590 Child Development Center is a significant investment. Benchmarking against similar federal construction projects for educational or community facilities of comparable size and complexity would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the government aimed for cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for value if the final cost aligns with the initial bid and scope.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources were excluded for reasons not detailed in the provided data. The number of bidders (23) is substantial, suggesting significant interest despite the exclusion criteria. A high number of bidders generally promotes price discovery and competition, potentially leading to better pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust number of bidders (23) in a 'limited' competition scenario is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down prices and ensured a competitive selection process, even with initial source exclusions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are military families and children requiring childcare services at the P590 facility. The contract delivers essential construction services for a new child development center, providing a safe and modern environment for young dependents. The geographic impact is localized to the area served by the P590 facility, likely a military installation in Virginia. The project supports the construction workforce, including skilled trades and labor, contributing to employment in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during construction, despite the firm fixed-price contract.
The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method could warrant further investigation to ensure fairness and optimal market engagement.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage complex construction timelines and deliver quality within the specified period.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
A large number of bidders (23) indicates strong market interest and competitive pressure.
The project addresses a critical need for child development services within the Department of Defense.
Award to a joint venture may leverage specialized expertise for a complex construction project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities, including critical infrastructure like child development centers. The total contract value of $16.17 million places it as a mid-to-large-sized project within this category. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically consider factors like square footage, specific facility requirements (e.g., security, specialized rooms), and regional labor costs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is a joint venture, the extent to which small businesses will be involved as subcontractors is not detailed. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem. Without specific set-aside goals, the direct impact on small businesses is likely dependent on the prime contractor's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Navy. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would be employed to monitor progress, adherence to specifications, and overall quality of work. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Child Care Facilities
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Federal Building Construction
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation due to long project duration.
Limited competition justification requires review.
Contractor performance risk under fixed-price agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.2 million to BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC. P590 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-10. End: 2012-10-03.

What is the track record of BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC. with federal contracts?

Information on the specific track record of 'BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC.' requires accessing detailed contract databases beyond the provided summary. As a joint venture, its performance history might be a composite of its constituent members or reflect its own operational history. Generally, federal agencies review past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) when awarding contracts. A positive past performance record is crucial for winning competitive bids. Without access to specific performance data for this entity, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record. However, the award of a $16.17 million contract suggests they met the agency's criteria for capability and reliability at the time of award.

How does the $16.17 million contract value compare to similar child development center construction projects?

Benchmarking the $16.17 million contract value requires comparing it to similar projects based on size (square footage), scope of work, location, and specific features (e.g., LEED certification, specialized security). Federal child development centers can vary significantly in cost. Projects on military bases might have different cost structures than those in the civilian sector due to specific security requirements and infrastructure integration. A preliminary assessment suggests that $16.17 million is a substantial but not necessarily excessive amount for a modern, purpose-built facility designed to accommodate a significant number of children, especially considering construction costs in the late 2010s (contract awarded in 2010).

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, while beneficial for cost certainty, lies in potential contractor performance issues. If BIG DESBUILD JOINT VENTURE INC. underestimated costs, encountered unforeseen site conditions, or faced labor/material cost escalations beyond their contingency, they might face financial losses. This could potentially lead to pressure to cut corners on quality or delays. For the government, risks include the contractor's potential default or bankruptcy, though this is less common on larger projects. The 'exclusion of sources' aspect also introduces a risk that the government may not have received the absolute best value if a highly competitive bidder was prevented from participating.

How effective was the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' strategy in achieving value?

The effectiveness of 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' in achieving value is nuanced. The strategy aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements or limitations that might necessitate excluding certain types of contractors or specific entities. The fact that 23 bids were received suggests that the exclusion criteria did not unduly stifle competition, which is a positive sign for value. However, the 'value' achieved is relative. Without knowing who was excluded and why, it's impossible to definitively say if a broader competition might have yielded even lower prices or superior technical solutions. The agency likely had justifiable reasons for the exclusion, possibly related to specific technical capabilities, past performance issues with certain firms, or socio-economic goals.

What is the historical spending trend for child development center construction by the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for child development center construction by the Department of the Navy requires a deep dive into federal procurement data over several years. This specific contract (awarded 2010) represents a single data point. To understand trends, one would need to examine spending patterns for similar projects across multiple fiscal years, looking at the number of awards, average contract values, and the types of competition used. Factors like military base growth, changing regulations on child care ratios, and budget allocations for family support services would influence these trends. This single contract suggests a commitment to providing such facilities, but broader analysis is needed for trend identification.

What are the implications of the 877-day duration on project management and cost?

A duration of 877 days (approximately 2.4 years) for a $16.17 million construction project indicates a significant undertaking, likely involving complex design, extensive site work, and potentially phased construction. For project management, this long duration necessitates robust oversight to ensure milestones are met, quality is maintained, and the project stays on schedule. From a cost perspective, a longer duration increases the contractor's exposure to market fluctuations in material prices and labor costs, even under a fixed-price contract (though these risks are usually factored into the bid). For the government, a prolonged construction period means delayed availability of the facility, potentially impacting the families it's intended to serve.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: N4008009R0159

Offers Received: 23

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 11262 OLD BALITIMORE PIKE, BELTSVILLE, MD, 04

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,171,767

Exercised Options: $16,171,767

Current Obligation: $16,171,767

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline