Naval Base Kitsap energy efficiency project awarded to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO for over $25M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,182,876 ($25.2M)

Contractor: Absher Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-09-27

End Date: 2016-02-15

Contract Duration: 871 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF ENERGY EFFICIENT PROJECTS, NAVAL BASE KITSAP, WA

Place of Performance

Location: BREMERTON, KITSAP County, WASHINGTON, 98314

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.2 million to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF ENERGY EFFICIENT PROJECTS, NAVAL BASE KITSAP, WA Key points: 1. The contract value of over $25 million represents a significant investment in energy efficiency upgrades. 2. Competition dynamics for this large-scale construction project are crucial for ensuring taxpayer value. 3. The duration of the contract (871 days) suggests a complex and multi-faceted project. 4. Fixed-price contract type indicates a defined scope and cost, transferring some risk to the contractor. 5. The project's focus on energy efficiency aligns with broader federal sustainability goals. 6. The geographic location in Washington state may influence local economic and workforce impacts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $25.18 million for energy-efficient building construction at Naval Base Kitsap is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale federal construction projects for energy efficiency is challenging without more granular data on the specific scope of work (e.g., types of upgrades, square footage). However, the fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to control costs. The number of bids received (11) indicates a degree of market interest, but the ultimate value-for-money assessment depends on the delivered performance and long-term energy savings achieved.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 11 bids received. This level of competition is generally positive, suggesting that multiple contractors were aware of and interested in the opportunity. A robust bidding process can lead to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors. The fact that 11 firms submitted bids indicates a healthy market response for this type of large-scale construction project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing the best possible price and quality for the services rendered, fostering a competitive environment that drives down costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and Naval Base Kitsap, through improved energy efficiency and reduced operational costs. The project delivers infrastructure improvements focused on energy conservation and sustainability. The geographic impact is concentrated at Naval Base Kitsap in Washington state. The project likely involved a significant construction workforce, potentially benefiting local labor markets.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during the extensive construction period.
Ensuring long-term energy savings meet or exceed projections is critical for value realization.
Coordination challenges between the prime contractor and any potential subcontractors.
The fixed-price nature could incentivize cutting corners if not rigorously overseen.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Focus on energy efficiency aligns with federal sustainability mandates.
The contractor, ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO, has experience in large-scale construction projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on energy efficiency upgrades for a large federal facility. The market for federal construction, particularly for specialized projects like energy retrofits on military bases, is substantial. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar facility modernization and energy-saving initiatives. The size of this contract suggests it is a significant project within its specific niche.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO, there is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans or goals for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether ABSHER actively seeks to subcontract portions of the work to qualified small businesses, which is a common practice in large federal construction projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under 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 facilitated through federal contract databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Buildings and Facilities Construction
Department of Defense Energy Programs
Military Base Infrastructure Modernization
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
Sustainable Federal Facilities

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or delays.
Performance metrics for energy savings need rigorous tracking.
Potential for disruption to base operations during construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.2 million to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO. IGF::OT::IGF ENERGY EFFICIENT PROJECTS, NAVAL BASE KITSAP, WA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-09-27. End: 2016-02-15.

What is the track record of ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO on similar federal energy efficiency projects?

Assessing ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO's track record on similar federal energy efficiency projects requires a deeper dive into their past performance evaluations and contract history. While this specific contract indicates they were awarded a significant project, it doesn't detail their success rate or client satisfaction on comparable energy retrofits. Federal contract databases and performance assessment reporting tools (like CPARS) would be the primary sources to evaluate their experience with energy-efficient building construction, adherence to schedules and budgets on similar projects, and overall quality of work. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their expertise in this niche beyond their ability to win this particular bid.

How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar energy efficiency projects?

Directly comparing the awarded amount of $25.18 million to market rates for similar energy efficiency projects is challenging without detailed specifications of the work performed. Factors such as the scope of upgrades (e.g., HVAC, lighting, insulation, renewable energy integration), the size and complexity of the facilities at Naval Base Kitsap, and regional construction cost variations significantly influence pricing. A comprehensive benchmark would involve analyzing the cost per square foot or cost per unit of energy saved for comparable projects undertaken by other federal agencies or in the private sector. The fact that 11 bids were received suggests a competitive process, which typically drives awarded prices closer to market value, but a definitive assessment requires more granular project details and cost breakdowns.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this energy efficiency project?

The success of this energy efficiency project would likely be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative KPIs. Key performance indicators would typically include the actual percentage reduction in energy consumption (electricity, natural gas, water) compared to baseline usage, the resulting cost savings in utility bills, and the return on investment (ROI) over a specified period. Other important metrics could involve the performance and reliability of newly installed systems, compliance with environmental standards, and the overall lifespan of the upgrades. The contract itself should outline specific performance standards and measurement protocols to ensure the project meets its intended energy-saving objectives and provides long-term value.

What is the historical spending pattern for energy efficiency projects at Naval Base Kitsap or similar Navy installations?

To understand the historical spending pattern for energy efficiency projects at Naval Base Kitsap or similar Navy installations, one would need to analyze federal procurement data over several fiscal years. This would involve searching for contracts categorized under energy efficiency, facility upgrades, construction, and related keywords associated with the Department of the Navy and specific bases. Examining past awards would reveal the frequency, average contract values, and types of energy-saving initiatives undertaken. This historical context helps in evaluating whether the $25.18 million awarded to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO represents a typical investment, an increase, or a decrease in spending for such projects, providing insight into the Navy's commitment and budget allocation for energy conservation efforts.

What are the potential risks associated with the long duration (871 days) of this construction contract?

The 871-day duration (approximately 2.4 years) for this energy efficiency construction project introduces several potential risks. Firstly, there is an increased risk of cost escalation due to inflation or unforeseen changes in material prices over an extended period, even with a fixed-price contract, if scope changes occur. Secondly, the prolonged timeline heightens the possibility of encountering unforeseen site conditions or technical challenges that could lead to delays and require contract modifications. Thirdly, extended project durations can impact the operational tempo of the base, requiring careful planning and coordination to minimize disruption. Finally, there's a risk of technological obsolescence if the project spans a very long time, though this is less likely for core energy efficiency infrastructure.

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

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1001 SHAW RD, PUYALLUP, WA, 98372

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,182,876

Exercised Options: $25,182,876

Current Obligation: $25,182,876

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline