DoD's $6.78M Submarine Training Facility Expansion Awarded to Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,775,535 ($6.8M)

Contractor: Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-09-19

End Date: 2027-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,167 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: P818 AE PDA COLUMBIA SUBMARINE TRAINING FACILITY EXPANSION, NBK

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32814

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.8 million to ROGERS, LOVELOCK & FRITZ, INC. for work described as: P818 AE PDA COLUMBIA SUBMARINE TRAINING FACILITY EXPANSION, NBK Key points: 1. Contract awarded for facility expansion, indicating ongoing investment in naval training infrastructure. 2. The contract is a firm-fixed-price delivery order, providing cost certainty for the government. 3. Competition was full and open, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The project is located in Florida, a key state for naval operations and training. 5. The duration of the contract extends over two years, allowing for phased development. 6. The award value is relatively modest for a construction-related engineering service contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $6.78 million for an expansion of a submarine training facility appears reasonable given the scope of engineering services required. Benchmarking against similar facility expansion projects within the Department of Defense, particularly those involving specialized training infrastructure, would provide a more precise assessment. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor has assumed the primary cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This method typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competition was sought.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

Naval personnel undergoing submarine training will benefit from enhanced facility capabilities. The project will deliver expanded and potentially modernized training facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, supporting regional naval readiness. The contract is expected to create or sustain jobs in the engineering and construction sectors within Florida.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial design requirements are not fully defined.
Risk of schedule delays due to unforeseen site conditions or permitting issues.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage specialized engineering and construction tasks effectively.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure limits cost overruns for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive pricing environment.
The project supports critical naval training infrastructure, aligning with strategic defense priorities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense infrastructure development. The market for specialized military facility construction and expansion is significant, driven by ongoing modernization and operational needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large-scale construction and engineering projects for military branches, particularly those focused on training and simulation facilities.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As a full and open competition, there is no explicit requirement for subcontracting to small businesses unless voluntarily pursued by the prime contractor. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc. engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services within the agreed price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Military Construction Projects
Submarine Training Programs
Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not well-defined.
Risk of schedule delays impacting training readiness.
Contractor performance history needs thorough review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.8 million to ROGERS, LOVELOCK & FRITZ, INC.. P818 AE PDA COLUMBIA SUBMARINE TRAINING FACILITY EXPANSION, NBK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROGERS, LOVELOCK & FRITZ, 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 $6.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-09-19. End: 2027-11-30.

What is the track record of Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc. with Department of Defense contracts, particularly in facility expansion projects?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess the track record of Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc. with the Department of Defense. Specifically, one would look for past performance on similar-sized contracts, projects involving facility expansion or construction, and any history of performance issues or awards. Understanding their experience with naval facilities and submarine-related infrastructure would be particularly relevant. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their past performance, but the award of this contract suggests they met the necessary qualifications and past performance requirements set by the Navy.

How does the awarded amount of $6.78 million compare to similar submarine training facility expansion projects in terms of value for money?

Benchmarking the $6.78 million award against similar submarine training facility expansion projects requires access to a database of comparable contracts. Factors such as the scope of work (e.g., square footage, specific training systems integration, environmental considerations), geographic location (which impacts labor and material costs), and the complexity of the engineering services are crucial for a fair comparison. If this project involves significant upgrades to existing infrastructure or the construction of entirely new specialized training modules, the cost could be justified. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is reasonable for a specialized facility expansion, but a detailed comparison with projects of identical scope and complexity would be needed for a definitive value-for-money conclusion.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risk indicators for this contract include potential schedule delays due to unforeseen site conditions, complexity in integrating new training technologies, and the possibility of cost escalation if the firm-fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all contingencies. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust project management by the Navy, detailed site investigations prior to construction, clear definition of technical requirements, and performance bonds from the contractor. The firm-fixed-price structure itself mitigates financial risk for the government by capping the total cost, provided the scope is well-defined and managed.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring program effectiveness and cost control for this specific project?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in ensuring cost control for projects where the scope of work can be clearly defined upfront, such as facility expansion. It shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage resources efficiently and complete the project within budget. For program effectiveness, FFP can be effective if the technical specifications are precise and comprehensive, ensuring the delivered facility meets all required training capabilities. However, if the scope is ambiguous or subject to change, an FFP contract might lead to disputes or a reluctance by the contractor to incorporate necessary modifications, potentially impacting effectiveness.

What are the historical spending patterns for submarine training facility upgrades within the Department of the Navy, and how does this award fit within those trends?

Historical spending patterns for submarine training facility upgrades within the Department of the Navy typically reflect investments in maintaining and modernizing aging infrastructure, incorporating new technologies (like advanced simulators), and expanding capacity to meet evolving training requirements. Awards in this category can range significantly in value depending on the scale of the upgrade, from minor renovations to major new construction. This $6.78 million award appears to be a mid-range investment, likely addressing specific expansion needs rather than a complete overhaul. It fits within the broader trend of continuous investment required to ensure the Navy's submarine force remains proficient and technologically advanced.

What is the significance of the contract being a 'Delivery Order' under a larger contract vehicle, and what does this imply for oversight?

The designation 'Delivery Order' indicates that this contract is a task order issued under an existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) or similar contract vehicle. This implies that a broader contract, potentially covering multiple projects or services over a period, was previously awarded, likely through a competitive process. The oversight for this specific delivery order would focus on ensuring the work performed aligns with the scope defined in the order, meets quality standards, and is completed within the specified timeline and budget. The overarching contract vehicle itself would have undergone initial vetting and oversight during its award phase.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RLF & CN JV

Address: 4750 NEW BROAD ST, ORLANDO, FL, 32814

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $8,714,678

Exercised Options: $6,775,535

Current Obligation: $6,775,535

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4425520D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline