DoD awards $24.5M construction contract for PE18412M to Peter Vander Werff Construction, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,506,094 ($24.5M)

Contractor: Peter Vander Werff Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-11-07

End Date: 2026-09-18

Contract Duration: 1,046 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.4K/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: CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR PE18412M

Place of Performance

Location: CAMP PENDLETON, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92055

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.5 million to PETER VANDER WERFF CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR PE18412M Key points: 1. The contract value of $24.5 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate selection. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, given the fixed-price nature of the contract which shifts some risk to the contractor. 4. Performance context will be crucial to monitor as this is a delivery order with a substantial duration. 5. The sector positioning is within commercial and institutional building construction, a vital area for government facilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this $24.5 million construction award against similar Department of Defense projects requires detailed cost breakdowns not available in the provided data. However, the fixed-price contract type suggests an attempt to control costs by defining the scope and price upfront. Without specific line-item costs or comparisons to similar projects in California, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The duration of over 1000 days implies a complex project where cost overruns could be a concern if not managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which is a less common and potentially more restrictive competition method. This suggests that while the intent was competition, specific criteria or circumstances led to excluding certain potential bidders. With 3 bids received, the level of competition appears moderate, but the 'exclusion of sources' aspect warrants further investigation into why a broader competition was not pursued.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers compared to a truly full and open competition where a wider range of contractors could participate, potentially driving prices down through more robust bidding.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel who will utilize the completed construction. The contract delivers essential building construction services, likely for a specific facility or infrastructure project (PE18412M). The geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the construction work will take place. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades in the local California economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the long duration if scope creep or unforeseen issues arise.
Limited competition may have led to a suboptimal price for taxpayers.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown makes thorough value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type helps to cap costs and provides budget certainty.
Delivery order structure allows for phased execution and potential flexibility.
Award to an established construction firm suggests a degree of reliability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as offices, government facilities, and educational institutions. Government spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, or expand existing facilities, or to construct new ones to meet operational requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar government construction projects within the same region.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary consideration for this specific award, as it was not set aside for small businesses and the contractor is not explicitly identified as a small business. This means that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses will depend on the prime contractor's own policies and the nature of the work required. Without a small business set-aside, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses for specialized services.

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 typically embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and payment milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like SAM.gov. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected during the performance of the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Projects
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Commercial Building Construction Awards
Infrastructure Development Projects

Risk Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential price inflation.
Long project duration increases the risk of unforeseen cost increases or delays.
Lack of detailed project scope in summary data hinders thorough value analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.5 million to PETER VANDER WERFF CONSTRUCTION, INC.. CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR PE18412M

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PETER VANDER WERFF CONSTRUCTION, 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 $24.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-11-07. End: 2026-09-18.

What is the specific nature of the PE18412M project and its intended use?

The provided data identifies PE18412M as the project identifier for a construction award. Without further context or access to the detailed project description, the specific nature and intended use of the construction remain unknown. Typically, such identifiers are linked to specific facility upgrades, new constructions, or infrastructure improvements managed by the Department of the Navy. Understanding the project's purpose is crucial for assessing its strategic importance, potential impact, and the appropriateness of the awarded contract value and terms.

How does the $24.5 million award compare to the estimated cost or budget for similar construction projects by the Navy?

A direct comparison of the $24.5 million award to similar Navy construction projects requires access to a database of historical contract awards with detailed cost breakdowns and project scopes. Factors such as project size (square footage), complexity, location, and specific construction types (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, specialized facilities) significantly influence costs. The provided data lacks these comparative metrics, making it difficult to definitively state whether this award represents a high, low, or average cost for comparable projects. Further analysis would involve benchmarking against projects with similar National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) or Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) classifications.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and milestones for this delivery order?

The provided data indicates a delivery order with a duration of 1046 days (approximately 2.8 years) and an end date of September 18, 2026. Key performance indicators (KPIs) and milestones would typically be detailed within the contract's statement of work (SOW) and delivery schedules. These would likely include phased completion dates for different construction stages, quality control benchmarks, adherence to safety regulations, and final project completion. Failure to meet these KPIs or milestones could result in contractual penalties or remedies, as stipulated in the firm fixed-price agreement.

What specific factors led to the 'exclusion of sources' in this full and open competition?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' implies that while the procurement was intended to be competitive, certain potential sources were deliberately excluded. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed in the provided data but could stem from various factors. These might include pre-qualification requirements, specific technical capabilities not met by all potential bidders, past performance issues with certain contractors, or unique security clearances required for the project. Understanding these exclusion criteria is vital for assessing whether the competition was truly as broad as possible under the circumstances.

What is the track record of Peter Vander Werff Construction, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the track record of Peter Vander Werff Construction, Inc. with federal contracts, especially with the Department of Defense, is not present in the provided data snippet. A comprehensive assessment would require searching federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for their contract history, including award values, agencies served, contract types, and performance ratings. This would help determine their experience, reliability, and past performance on similar projects, which are critical factors in evaluating the risk associated with this current award.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type mitigate risks for the government in this construction project?

The Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type is generally advantageous for the government in construction projects as it shifts the majority of cost risk to the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides budget certainty for the government and incentivizes the contractor to manage their costs efficiently and complete the project within scope. Potential risks for the government under FFP include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if not adequately overseen, or the initial price being set too high if the scope was not perfectly defined.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 125 W LEXINGTON AVE, EL CAJON, CA, 92020

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,506,094

Exercised Options: $24,506,094

Current Obligation: $24,506,094

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247320D1125

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline