DoD's $10.9M barrier contract awarded to Nadiad Inc. for 485 days, with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,939,720 ($10.9M)

Contractor: Nadiad Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-16

End Date: 2027-01-14

Contract Duration: 485 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.6K/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: DD2 BARRIER PROTECTION - SIOP

Place of Performance

Location: KITTERY, YORK County, MAINE, 03904

State: Maine Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.9 million to NADIAD INC for work described as: DD2 BARRIER PROTECTION - SIOP Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of construction services. 2. Competition was robust with three bidders, suggesting fair market pricing. 3. No immediate risk indicators identified, but performance history will be key. 4. This contract supports infrastructure maintenance within the Department of Defense. 5. Falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector. 6. Fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $10.9 million over approximately 16 months suggests a monthly expenditure of roughly $684,000. This figure needs to be benchmarked against similar construction projects for barrier installation or maintenance, considering factors like location, complexity, and material costs. Without specific comparable data, it's difficult to definitively assess value, but the fixed-price nature provides cost certainty.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded. With three bidders participating, the competition level suggests a moderate degree of market interest. This level of competition is generally sufficient to drive competitive pricing, though a higher number of bidders could potentially yield even more aggressive offers.

Taxpayer Impact: The presence of three bidders indicates that taxpayers likely benefited from a competitive pricing environment, preventing a sole-source situation and ensuring a reasonable cost for the barrier construction services.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential infrastructure protection. Services include the construction of barriers, crucial for security and operational needs. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the barriers are installed, likely a military installation in Maine. The contract supports the construction workforce, including skilled tradespeople and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial barrier requirements are not precisely defined.
Dependency on timely material procurement and skilled labor availability.
Weather delays are a common risk in construction projects, especially in Maine.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract limits the government's exposure to cost overruns.
Multiple bidders suggest a healthy competitive environment.
Clear end date provides a defined project timeline.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the erection, alteration, and repair of non-residential buildings. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government infrastructure needs, private development, and commercial expansion. This specific contract addresses a niche requirement for barrier construction, likely for security or operational purposes within a defense facility. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within government construction procurement data for similar infrastructure projects.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the prime contractor, Nadiad Inc., is likely a larger entity, and the contract's structure does not appear to prioritize direct small business engagement through set-asides.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Construction Services for Government Facilities
Physical Security Enhancements

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Contract duration may introduce risks of cost escalation or performance degradation.
Effectiveness of barriers depends on detailed technical specifications not provided.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.9 million to NADIAD INC. DD2 BARRIER PROTECTION - SIOP

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NADIAD 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 $10.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-16. End: 2027-01-14.

What is the track record of Nadiad Inc. in performing similar construction contracts for the Department of Defense?

Assessing Nadiad Inc.'s track record requires a review of their past performance on similar contracts, particularly those involving barrier construction or significant infrastructure projects for the Department of Defense or other federal agencies. Key indicators include on-time delivery, adherence to budget (especially for fixed-price contracts), quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. A review of past performance evaluations, if publicly available, would provide crucial insights into their reliability and capability to execute this current contract successfully. Without specific past performance data, it is assumed they meet the qualifications based on the award.

How does the per-square-foot cost of this barrier construction compare to industry benchmarks?

To compare the per-square-foot cost, we would need detailed specifications of the barriers being constructed (e.g., material, height, depth, specific security features) and the total square footage they cover. The total contract value is $10.9 million over a duration of 485 days. If we assume a significant portion of this value is for the physical barrier construction itself, and we can estimate the total linear or square footage, we could then calculate a unit cost. This unit cost would then be benchmarked against industry standards for similar barrier types (e.g., concrete, steel, earthworks) in similar geographic regions, considering labor and material costs prevalent in Maine.

What are the primary risks associated with the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific potential sources were deliberately excluded from bidding. The primary risk is that this exclusion might have inadvertently limited the pool of highly qualified or cost-competitive contractors, potentially leading to a less optimal outcome for the government than true full and open competition. It could also raise questions about the justification for excluding certain sources. However, if the exclusion was based on specific technical requirements or security clearances that only a limited number of firms possessed, it might be a necessary measure to ensure contract success.

What is the expected effectiveness of the barriers being constructed in meeting the Department of Defense's security objectives?

The effectiveness of the barriers hinges on their design, materials, and intended purpose, which are not detailed in the provided data. These barriers are likely intended to enhance physical security, control access, or provide protection against specific threats at a Department of Defense facility. Their effectiveness will be measured by their ability to withstand anticipated threats, integrate with existing security systems, and meet the operational requirements of the end-user. A thorough assessment would require reviewing the technical specifications and performance requirements outlined in the contract statement of work.

How does the $10.9 million spending on this barrier project compare to historical spending on similar infrastructure projects by the Department of the Navy?

To compare this $10.9 million contract to historical spending, we would need access to historical contract data for the Department of the Navy, specifically for barrier construction or similar physical security infrastructure projects. This would involve identifying comparable projects by scope, complexity, and duration over previous fiscal years. Analyzing trends in spending for such infrastructure can reveal whether this contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in this area. It also helps in understanding the typical cost ranges for similar undertakings within the Navy's budget.

What are the potential implications of the 485-day duration on the overall project cost and risk?

A duration of 485 days (approximately 16 months) for a construction project of this nature suggests a moderately complex undertaking. Longer durations can increase risks related to inflation of material and labor costs, potential changes in regulatory requirements, and the contractor's sustained performance over an extended period. However, for large-scale construction, such a timeline might be necessary to ensure quality and manage resources effectively. The fixed-price nature of the contract helps mitigate direct cost escalation for the government due to the duration, but it places the risk of cost overruns squarely on the contractor.

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: 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: 1026 OLD CORLIES AVENUE, NEPTUNE, NJ, 07753

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,939,720

Exercised Options: $10,939,720

Current Obligation: $10,939,720

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4008522D0058

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline