DoD's $6.5M Weapons Facility Contract Awarded to Belt Built Contracting Amidst Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,508,616 ($6.5M)

Contractor: Belt Built Contracting, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-09-15

End Date: 2026-03-12

Contract Duration: 909 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: X010 B2976 SECURE WEAPONS ASSEMBLY FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.5 million to BELT BUILT CONTRACTING, LLC for work described as: X010 B2976 SECURE WEAPONS ASSEMBLY FACILITY Key points: 1. Value-for-money assessment pending detailed cost breakdown and comparison to similar construction projects. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a robust bidding process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include project duration and potential for cost overruns common in large construction. 4. Performance context will be evaluated based on project milestones and adherence to specifications. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader defense construction and infrastructure domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $6.5 million for a secure weapons assembly facility appears within a reasonable range for specialized defense construction. However, a definitive value-for-money assessment requires a detailed breakdown of costs, including labor, materials, and overhead, and comparison against similar, recently awarded facilities. Benchmarking against industry standards for secure construction and the specific requirements of weapons assembly will be crucial.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting that while the competition was broad, specific criteria or prior exclusions may have narrowed the initial pool. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation generally implies a competitive environment that should facilitate price discovery and potentially lead to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions, reducing the likelihood of inflated costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy, which will gain a critical facility for weapons assembly. The services delivered include the construction of a secure facility designed to meet stringent military requirements. The geographic impact is localized to Maryland, where the facility will be constructed. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades in the Maryland area during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in specialized defense construction projects.
Risk of delays due to complex security requirements and site preparation.
Dependency on specific material availability for secure facility construction.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive market.
Fixed-price contract type can help control costs if well-defined.
Experienced contractor likely selected through a rigorous process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on specialized institutional and commercial building construction for defense applications. The market for defense-related construction is significant, driven by ongoing modernization and infrastructure needs within military branches. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other secure facility constructions, such as armories, munitions storage, or sensitive research labs, within the federal and private sectors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside criterion for this specific contract. While Belt Built Contracting, LLC may engage small businesses as subcontractors, there is no explicit requirement for a small business set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem will depend on the subcontracting opportunities generated by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions, ensuring adherence to specifications, timelines, and budget. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which shifts some cost risk to the contractor. Transparency will be facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms, and the Inspector General's office may conduct audits or investigations if concerns arise regarding fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Defense Infrastructure Modernization
Secure Facility Construction
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns
Schedule delays
Specialized construction requirements
Security compliance risks

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.5 million to BELT BUILT CONTRACTING, LLC. X010 B2976 SECURE WEAPONS ASSEMBLY FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BELT BUILT CONTRACTING, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-15. End: 2026-03-12.

What is the track record of Belt Built Contracting, LLC on similar federal contracts, particularly those involving secure facilities or defense construction?

Assessing the track record of Belt Built Contracting, LLC requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, especially those with similar scope, complexity, and security requirements. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be invaluable. Key metrics to examine include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any past disputes or contract modifications. For secure facilities, their experience with specific security protocols, materials, and construction techniques relevant to weapons assembly would be a critical indicator of their capability and reliability for this specific Department of the Navy contract.

How does the awarded price of $6.5 million compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar secure weapons assembly facilities?

A direct comparison of the $6.5 million award price to market rates for similar secure weapons assembly facilities is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and specific project requirements. However, general benchmarks for institutional and commercial building construction, adjusted for the specialized security and operational needs of a weapons assembly facility, can provide context. Factors such as square footage, specific security features (e.g., blast resistance, access control), environmental controls, and the complexity of internal systems (e.g., ventilation, power) significantly influence cost. If available, data on recently awarded contracts for comparable facilities by other military branches or government agencies could serve as a benchmark. The 'full and open competition' aspect suggests that the price should be competitive, but a thorough cost-plus analysis or independent government cost estimate would be needed for a definitive value assessment.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are likely in place?

The primary risks associated with this contract likely include potential cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions or material price fluctuations, schedule delays stemming from complex security requirements or supply chain issues, and performance risks related to the specialized nature of weapons assembly facility construction. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust project management, detailed scheduling with contingency planning, stringent quality control measures, and clear communication channels between the contractor and the Department of the Navy. The firm-fixed-price contract type inherently shifts some cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage costs effectively. Furthermore, the 'full and open competition' process should have selected a contractor with a proven ability to manage such risks.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' approach in ensuring both competition and suitability for specialized defense projects?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' approach aims to balance broad competition with the need for specific capabilities or compliance with certain regulations. It allows for a wide range of potential bidders initially but may exclude certain sources based on pre-defined criteria (e.g., security clearances, specific certifications, past performance issues). This can be effective in ensuring that the pool of bidders is highly qualified and capable of meeting the specialized requirements of defense projects, potentially leading to better technical solutions. However, if the exclusions are too broad or not clearly justified, it could inadvertently limit competition and potentially lead to higher prices than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. The effectiveness hinges on the justification and transparency of the exclusion criteria.

What is the historical spending pattern for secure weapons assembly facilities within the Department of Defense or Department of the Navy?

Historical spending patterns for secure weapons assembly facilities within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of the Navy (DoN) are typically characterized by significant, project-specific investments. These facilities are critical infrastructure, and their construction or modernization is often driven by evolving threats, technological advancements in weaponry, and the need for enhanced security protocols. Spending can fluctuate based on strategic defense priorities, budget allocations, and the lifecycle of existing facilities. Analyzing past contracts for similar facilities, including their size, complexity, and duration, would reveal trends in cost per square foot, typical contract durations, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus). This historical data is crucial for benchmarking current contract values and understanding long-term investment strategies in defense infrastructure.

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: N4008022R2222

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2138 ESPEY CT, CROFTON, MD, 21114

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,508,616

Exercised Options: $6,508,616

Current Obligation: $6,508,616

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4008023D1120

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline