Navy awards $130M construction contract for facility maintenance, highlighting fixed-price structure and full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,156,732 ($35.2M)

Contractor: Integrated Mota J V

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-03-01

End Date: 2005-12-12

Contract Duration: 651 days

Daily Burn Rate: $54.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200406!000108!1700!C8950 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6895003C0054 !A!N! !N! !PP0002!20040301!20050429!129969452!129969452!129969452!N!INTEGRATED/MOTA JV !29870 N SKOKIE HWY STE !LAKE BLUFF !IL!60044!31175!097!17!GREAT LAKES !LAKE !ILLINOIS !-000000021900!N!N!000000000000!Z299!MAINT/ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !237990!E! !3!B!M!D!A!D!20050429!B! ! !A! !A!U!J!2!003!K! !D!N!Z! ! !N!A!N!N!C! ! ! !D!A!00 !A!B!Y!S!N! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: GREAT LAKES, LAKE County, ILLINOIS, 60088

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.2 million to INTEGRATED MOTA J V for work described as: 200406!000108!1700!C8950 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6895003C0054 !A!N! !N! !PP0002!20040301!20050429!129969452!129969452!129969452!N!INTEGRATED/MOTA JV !29870 N SKOKIE HWY STE !LAKE BLUFF !IL!60044!31175!097!17!GREAT LAKES !LAKE… Key points: 1. The contract utilized a fixed-price structure, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 2. Full and open competition was employed, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 651 days indicates a significant, medium-term project. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, a major defense spender. 5. The primary service category is construction, specifically facility maintenance. 6. The contractor, INTEGRATED MOTA J V, is a joint venture.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $130 million for a 651-day duration suggests a substantial investment in facility maintenance. Without specific benchmarks for similar integrated facility maintenance contracts, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the fixed-price nature of the award implies that the government secured a defined cost for the services, which is generally favorable for budget predictability. The competition level, as indicated by 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' suggests that multiple bidders likely participated, which can contribute to competitive pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This solicitation method indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the final award. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes limit the pool of potential bidders compared to a purely unrestricted full and open competition. The number of bids received is not explicitly stated in the provided data, making it difficult to fully assess the intensity of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: While the competition was not entirely unrestricted, the 'full and open' aspect suggests that multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to bid, which generally supports competitive pricing and better value for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely naval facilities and personnel at the Great Lakes, Illinois location, who will receive improved maintenance and upkeep. The contract delivers essential services for the maintenance and upkeep of non-building facilities, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in Great Lakes, Illinois, where the facilities are located. The contract supports jobs within the construction and facility maintenance sectors, particularly for the joint venture 'INTEGRATED MOTA J V'.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources' clause.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes assessing contractor effectiveness challenging.
Fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to scope creep if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract structure transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition, even with exclusions, generally promotes competitive pricing.
The contract addresses critical facility maintenance needs for the Navy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically focusing on commercial and institutional building construction and maintenance. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) or potentially 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) suggests a focus on infrastructure and building-related services. Spending in this area is substantial across the federal government, particularly within defense agencies responsible for maintaining extensive physical plant and infrastructure. Benchmarking would require comparison to similar large-scale facility maintenance and construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. The award to a joint venture, 'INTEGRATED MOTA J V,' may involve small business participation within the venture's structure, but this is not explicitly detailed. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for small businesses to directly compete for this prime contract were limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Navy. The fixed-price nature of the contract implies that oversight would focus on ensuring the contractor meets the defined scope of work and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated by contract award databases, but detailed operational oversight mechanisms and specific inspector general involvement would depend on the contract's terms and any subsequent performance issues.

Related Government Programs

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Base Operations Support Contracts
Federal Facility Maintenance Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Contract duration and value suggest significant project scope requiring careful oversight.
Joint venture structure may obscure individual company performance history.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.2 million to INTEGRATED MOTA J V. 200406!000108!1700!C8950 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6895003C0054 !A!N! !N! !PP0002!20040301!20050429!129969452!129969452!129969452!N!INTEGRATED/MOTA JV !29870 N SKOKIE HWY STE !LAKE BLUFF !IL!60044!31175!097!17!GREAT LAKES !LAKE !ILLINOIS !-000000021900!N!N!000000000000!Z299!MAINT/ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !237990!E! !3!B!M!D!A!D!200

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTEGRATED MOTA J V.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-03-01. End: 2005-12-12.

What is the track record of INTEGRATED MOTA J V with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the specific track record of 'INTEGRATED MOTA J V' prior to or following this 2004 award is not detailed in the provided data snippet. As a joint venture, its performance would be a composite of its member companies. To assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, other federal contract awards, and any reported issues or successes associated with this specific entity or its constituent firms. Federal procurement data systems (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would be the primary source for such historical information, allowing for an analysis of their experience, past performance ratings, and any history of contract disputes or terminations.

How does the awarded amount of $129,969,452 compare to similar facility maintenance contracts awarded by the Navy during that period?

Comparing the $130 million award to similar contracts requires access to historical contract databases and filtering for comparable services (facility maintenance, construction) and agencies (Department of the Navy) within the 2004-2005 timeframe. Without such a comparative dataset, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents a high, low, or average value. However, for a multi-year contract (651 days) covering comprehensive maintenance, this figure suggests a significant scope of work. Factors like geographic location, specific facility types, and the complexity of maintenance required would influence pricing, making direct comparisons challenging without detailed context.

What specific risks are associated with a fixed-price contract for integrated facility maintenance, and how might they be mitigated?

A primary risk with fixed-price contracts for integrated facility maintenance is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if costs exceed estimates. This can lead to subpar maintenance and future repair needs. Another risk is scope creep, where unforeseen requirements arise, potentially leading to change orders and cost increases if not managed strictly. Mitigation strategies include robust performance work statements, clear quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), regular progress reviews, and strong contract administration by the government to ensure adherence to the defined scope and quality standards. Effective communication and a collaborative approach, despite the fixed-price nature, can also help address emergent issues.

What does 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' imply about the bidding environment for this contract?

This solicitation method suggests a nuanced approach to competition. 'Full and open' implies that the initial intent was to allow all responsible sources to submit offers. However, the 'after exclusion of sources' clause indicates that certain potential bidders were removed from consideration at some stage, possibly due to pre-qualification requirements, specific technical capabilities, or other criteria outlined in the solicitation. This could mean that while multiple bids were likely received, the pool of bidders was narrower than in a completely unrestricted 'full and open' competition. The implication for price discovery is that it might be less competitive than a truly open process, but still potentially robust if several qualified firms vied for the contract.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) or 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) in understanding this contract's scope

The NAICS codes provide critical context for the contract's scope. NAICS 236220 points towards the construction of commercial and institutional buildings, encompassing a wide range of structures like offices, warehouses, and public facilities. NAICS 237990 covers heavy and civil engineering construction, which can include infrastructure projects not typically associated with buildings, such as roads, bridges, or utility systems. For this contract, which specifies 'MAINT/ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES,' the codes suggest the work might involve the maintenance and construction of infrastructure supporting buildings, such as grounds, utilities, roads within a facility, or specialized non-building structures, rather than the buildings themselves. This distinction is important for understanding the specific services being procured.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 29870 N SKOKIE HWY STE, LAKE BLUFF, IL, 60044

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline