DoD's $22.4M Energy Plant Construction Contract Awarded to Sauer Construction, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,378,119 ($22.4M)

Contractor: Sauer Construction, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-04-30

End Date: 2009-07-15

Contract Duration: 807 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 15,246 SF CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT TO SUPPORT KEESLER MEDICAL CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: BILOXI, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39534

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.4 million to SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 15,246 SF CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT TO SUPPORT KEESLER MEDICAL CENTER Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The project involved the construction of a 15,246 square foot central energy plant. 3. The contract duration was 807 days, indicating a significant construction timeline. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, part of the Department of Defense. 5. The project is located in Mississippi, with the specific city being Keesler. 6. The contract type was Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific construction project is challenging without comparable data on energy plant construction costs in the Mississippi region during 2007-2009. The firm fixed price contract type suggests that the initial price was agreed upon, but the overall value for money depends on the final quality and adherence to specifications. The contract was awarded to Sauer Construction, LLC, and the total award amount was approximately $22.4 million.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. Six bids were received, suggesting a reasonable level of competition for this industrial building construction project. The presence of multiple bidders generally aids in price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and military personnel at Keesler Medical Center, who will receive reliable energy support. The service delivered is the construction of essential infrastructure for a medical facility. The geographic impact is localized to Keesler, Mississippi. The project likely involved a significant number of construction workers, contributing to local employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, though mitigated by firm fixed price.
Delays in construction could impact the operational readiness of the medical center.
Ensuring the long-term durability and efficiency of the energy plant requires robust quality control.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process that could lead to better pricing.
The project supports critical medical infrastructure, indicating a high priority for the agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the industrial building construction sector, specifically for supporting critical infrastructure like a medical center. The market for large-scale construction projects, especially those for government entities, is substantial. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large federal building projects or similar energy infrastructure developments, though specific data for this niche is not readily available.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities offered by the prime contractor, Sauer Construction, LLC. The extent of small business subcontracting is not detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified product within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Energy Infrastructure Projects
Medical Facility Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting critical medical facility operations.
Risk associated with unforeseen site conditions in large-scale construction.
Ensuring long-term operational efficiency and maintenance of the energy plant.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.4 million to SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 15,246 SF CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT TO SUPPORT KEESLER MEDICAL CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-04-30. End: 2009-07-15.

What was the track record of Sauer Construction, LLC with federal contracts prior to and following this award?

Analyzing the track record of Sauer Construction, LLC requires accessing comprehensive federal contract databases. Without specific data on their past performance, it's difficult to assess their reliability for this project. Generally, agencies evaluate a contractor's past performance, including on-time delivery, quality of work, and adherence to budget, as part of the source selection process. A review of their contract history would reveal if they have a pattern of successful project completion or issues with previous federal awards, which could provide context for the risk associated with this particular contract.

How does the cost per square foot of this energy plant compare to similar government or commercial projects?

The total contract value was $22,378,119 for 15,246 square feet, resulting in a cost of approximately $1,469 per square foot. Benchmarking this figure requires comparing it to similar industrial building construction projects, particularly energy plants, within the same timeframe (2007-2009) and geographic region. Construction costs can vary significantly based on complexity, materials, labor rates, and specific technological requirements of an energy plant. Without access to a database of comparable projects, it is difficult to definitively state whether this cost per square foot represents excellent, fair, or concerning value.

What were the primary risk indicators identified during the procurement process for this contract?

Specific risk indicators identified during the procurement process are not detailed in the provided data. However, common risks for large construction projects include potential for schedule delays, cost overruns (though mitigated by firm fixed price), unforeseen site conditions, contractor performance issues, and the complexity of integrating new infrastructure with existing facilities. The Department of the Navy would have likely conducted a risk assessment as part of its source selection, evaluating factors such as the contractor's technical approach, management plan, and past performance. The firm fixed price contract shifts significant cost risk to the contractor.

How effective was the completed energy plant in meeting the energy needs of Keesler Medical Center?

The effectiveness of the completed energy plant in meeting the needs of Keesler Medical Center cannot be determined solely from the contract award data. Post-construction performance evaluations, operational data, and user feedback would be necessary to assess its effectiveness. Factors such as reliability, energy output, efficiency, and maintenance costs would all contribute to a comprehensive evaluation. The contract's success hinges on the plant's ability to provide consistent and adequate power to the medical facility, which is a critical function.

What is the historical spending trend for similar energy plant construction projects by the Department of Defense?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar energy plant construction projects by the Department of Defense requires a deep dive into federal procurement data over multiple fiscal years. This would involve identifying contracts with similar scopes of work (e.g., construction of power generation facilities, energy infrastructure upgrades) awarded to various branches of the DoD. Trends could reveal patterns in contract values, types of competition utilized, and average project durations. Such analysis would help contextualize the $22.4 million award for the Keesler energy plant within the broader DoD's capital investment strategy for infrastructure.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the performance period?

The provided data does not include information on contract modifications or change orders. For a contract of this duration (807 days) and value, it is not uncommon for modifications to occur due to unforeseen circumstances, design adjustments, or scope changes. A thorough review of the contract's official file or subsequent amendments would be required to determine if any modifications were issued and their impact on the final cost and schedule. The absence of this information means we cannot fully assess the final cost and timeline adherence.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N6945007R0756

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Sauer Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 062594069)

Address: 11223 PHILLIPS PARKWAY DR, JACKSONVILLE, FL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,918,156

Exercised Options: $22,378,119

Current Obligation: $22,378,119

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline