DoD's $16.2M Dormitory Construction Contract Awarded to Anderson Drace Joint Venture for Keesler AFB

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,209,998 ($16.2M)

Contractor: Anderson Drace Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-08-28

End Date: 2013-04-05

Contract Duration: 1,316 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#::P-3900::RP# DORMITORY (144 RM), KEESLER AFB, BILOXI, MS ARRA::YES::ARRA

Place of Performance

Location: BILOXI, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39534

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.2 million to ANDERSON DRACE JOINT VENTURE for work described as: TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#::P-3900::RP# DORMITORY (144 RM), KEESLER AFB, BILOXI, MS ARRA::YES::ARRA Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The project aimed to construct a dormitory with 144 rooms, addressing a specific infrastructure need. 3. The duration of the contract was over three years, indicating a substantial construction timeline. 4. The fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns. 5. The project was funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), highlighting its stimulus purpose. 6. The contract was awarded to a joint venture, potentially indicating a need for specialized capabilities or capacity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable data for dormitory construction of this size and scope in the same region and time period. The fixed-price nature of the contract is a positive indicator for cost control, as the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. However, the final cost relative to initial estimates or industry benchmarks for similar projects would be needed for a more definitive value assessment. The total award amount of $16.2 million for a 144-room dormitory suggests a per-room cost, but without detailed breakdowns of construction elements, it's difficult to assess if this represents excellent or fair value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' While this indicates a competitive process, the 'exclusion of sources' clause suggests that certain potential bidders were intentionally not considered, which warrants further investigation into the reasons for this exclusion. The presence of 8 bidders indicates a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process, despite the exclusion of some sources, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source award. The fact that 8 firms competed suggests that the government received multiple proposals, allowing for comparison and selection of the most cost-effective option.

Public Impact

Military personnel stationed at Keesler Air Force Base will benefit from improved housing facilities. The construction project provided essential infrastructure for the Air Force. The geographic impact is localized to Biloxi, Mississippi, where Keesler AFB is located. The project likely created temporary construction jobs in the Mississippi region. The completion of the dormitory supports the operational readiness and quality of life for service members.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type requires clarification to ensure fair market access.
The specific reasons for excluding certain sources could indicate potential limitations in competition or specialized requirements.
Without detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to fully assess the value-for-money aspect of the $16.2 million award.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad solicitation.
The fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project was funded by ARRA, suggesting it addressed an urgent need for economic stimulus and infrastructure development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of projects, from small renovations to large-scale facilities like dormitories. The market size for federal construction is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This particular project, a dormitory construction at a military installation, is a common type of federal building project. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing per-square-foot costs or per-room costs for similar institutional buildings in the region.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no specific information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity or a joint venture, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific prime contract may be limited unless the joint venture partners themselves are small businesses or have robust subcontracting requirements. Further investigation into the joint venture's composition and subcontracting practices would be needed to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of Defense contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and inspection authorities, as well as potentially the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for financial oversight. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would likely reside with the DoD IG. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, where basic award information is publicly available. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract type, which incentivizes the contractor to manage costs effectively to avoid financial losses.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Barracks and Dormitory Construction
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Federal Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential limitation of competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Need for detailed cost breakdown to fully assess value for money.
Limited information on contractor's prior performance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.2 million to ANDERSON DRACE JOINT VENTURE. TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#::P-3900::RP# DORMITORY (144 RM), KEESLER AFB, BILOXI, MS ARRA::YES::ARRA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ANDERSON DRACE JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-08-28. End: 2013-04-05.

What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources from the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The justification for excluding specific sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award typically relates to unique capabilities, specialized equipment, or specific performance requirements that only a limited number of contractors can meet. Without access to the detailed solicitation documents and award justification, it is impossible to determine the precise reasons for excluding certain bidders in this case. However, such exclusions are generally intended to ensure that the government procures services or goods that meet highly specific technical or performance standards, even if it narrows the competitive pool. The presence of 8 bidders suggests that despite exclusions, a sufficient number of qualified firms were still able to compete, indicating that the exclusions may have been narrowly tailored to essential requirements.

How does the per-room construction cost of this dormitory compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities?

To compare the per-room construction cost, we first calculate it from the provided data: $16,209,998 / 144 rooms = approximately $112,570 per room. Benchmarking this figure requires access to current construction cost data for institutional buildings, specifically dormitories, in Mississippi. Industry reports from construction cost estimators (e.g., RSMeans) or government cost estimating agencies would provide relevant data. Factors influencing cost include building materials, labor rates in the region, project complexity, site conditions, and specific amenities included in the dormitory. Generally, costs for institutional housing can range significantly, but a figure over $100,000 per room might be considered on the higher end, warranting a closer look at the project's specifications and the prevailing market conditions at the time of award (2009-2013).

What was the track record of Anderson Drace Joint Venture prior to this award?

Information regarding the specific track record of the 'Anderson Drace Joint Venture' prior to this 2009 award is not detailed in the provided data. As a joint venture, its history might be a composite of its individual member firms' experiences or a newly formed entity. To assess their track record, one would typically research past performance on similar federal or large-scale construction projects, including their on-time completion rates, adherence to budget, and quality of work. Databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contractor performance assessment reports (CPARS) would be primary sources for such information. Without this external data, it's difficult to evaluate their prior experience and reliability for a project of this magnitude.

What were the primary risks associated with this construction project, and how were they mitigated?

Construction projects, especially large ones like a 144-room dormitory, inherently carry risks such as cost overruns, schedule delays, unforeseen site conditions, labor shortages, and material price fluctuations. The primary risk mitigation strategy employed here was the 'Firm Fixed Price' (FFP) contract type. This contract structure places the financial risk of cost overruns squarely on the contractor, Anderson Drace Joint Venture, incentivizing them to manage costs effectively. Other potential mitigations, not explicitly stated but common in such projects, would include detailed project planning, robust site investigations, contingency planning for unforeseen issues, and strong project management oversight by the contracting agency (Department of the Navy).

How did the ARRA funding influence the project's timeline and execution?

Funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 was intended to stimulate the economy through infrastructure investment and job creation. Projects funded by ARRA often had accelerated timelines to ensure rapid deployment of funds. This means the project likely faced pressure to commence and complete work quickly to meet ARRA's economic stimulus objectives. While the contract duration was 1316 days (over 3.5 years), the ARRA designation suggests that the project was prioritized and potentially expedited in its planning and execution phases to contribute to economic recovery efforts during that period. The urgency associated with ARRA funds could also influence procurement processes, sometimes leading to faster award cycles.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N6945009R0770

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 11400 REICHOLD RD, GULFPORT, MS, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,209,998

Exercised Options: $16,209,998

Current Obligation: $16,209,998

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline