DoD's $20.4M NAS Pensacola construction contract awarded to Anderson Drace Joint Venture
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $20,429,316 ($20.4M)
Contractor: Anderson Drace Joint Venture
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2010-07-26
End Date: 2013-09-20
Contract Duration: 1,152 days
Daily Burn Rate: $17.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 34
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CORRY A SCHOOL BEQ, NAS PENSACOLA, FL
Place of Performance
Location: PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA County, FLORIDA, 32508
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $20.4 million to ANDERSON DRACE JOINT VENTURE for work described as: CORRY A SCHOOL BEQ, NAS PENSACOLA, FL Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially robust bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 1152 days indicates a complex, long-term project. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 5. Project location in Florida highlights regional construction activity. 6. The award falls within the broader category of institutional building construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's value of $20.4 million for building construction at NAS Pensacola appears within a reasonable range for large-scale institutional projects. Benchmarking against similar military construction contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to manage cost overruns, but the final cost-effectiveness depends on the quality of execution and adherence to the original scope. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar scope and complexity, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. This could be due to specific technical requirements, security clearances, or other pre-qualification criteria. The number of bidders (34) indicates a substantial level of interest, suggesting that the exclusion of sources did not unduly limit the competitive pool. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The significant number of bidders, despite some exclusions, suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from competitive pricing. However, the 'exclusion of sources' aspect warrants further scrutiny to ensure it was justified and did not unnecessarily restrict competition.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the personnel stationed at NAS Pensacola, who will gain improved facilities. The contract delivers new construction and renovation services for institutional buildings. The geographic impact is concentrated in Pensacola, Florida, supporting the local economy through construction jobs. The project likely involved a skilled construction workforce, contributing to employment in the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs despite fixed-price contract.
- Risk of delays due to the complexity of large-scale construction projects.
- Ensuring quality of construction meets military standards requires diligent oversight.
- The 'exclusion of sources' could limit competition if not properly justified.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- A large number of bidders (34) suggests strong market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
- The project duration of over three years indicates a commitment to substantial infrastructure improvement.
- Award to a joint venture may leverage specialized expertise from multiple firms.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures like schools, government facilities, and commercial properties. The market size for federal construction is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade aging infrastructure and build new facilities. This specific contract contributes to the ongoing modernization of military bases, a consistent area of government spending.
Small Business Impact
The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is a joint venture, it's unclear if this structure inherently involves small business participation. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to determine the extent of small business involvement and its impact on the small business ecosystem. Without specific set-aside goals, the direct benefit to small businesses may be limited unless they are successful subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance or closeout.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Program
- Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
- Federal Building Construction Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for scope creep
- Contractor performance risk
- Justification for source exclusion requires review
- Quality control during construction
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, large-contract, military-infrastructure, pensacola-florida, institutional-building, anderson-drace-joint-venture
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $20.4 million to ANDERSON DRACE JOINT VENTURE. CORRY A SCHOOL BEQ, NAS PENSACOLA, FL
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 $20.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-07-26. End: 2013-09-20.
What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources in this '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 technical requirements, specialized capabilities, security clearances, or past performance criteria that only a subset of potential contractors can meet. For a large construction project like the CORRY A SCHOOL BEQ at NAS Pensacola, exclusions might stem from the need for specific security protocols, experience with military-grade construction standards, or pre-qualification based on bonding capacity and financial stability. The Department of the Navy would have documented these criteria in the solicitation. Without access to the specific solicitation documents and award justification, the precise reasons remain unconfirmed, but they are intended to ensure the government procures services from the most qualified entities capable of meeting stringent project demands.
How does the final contract price compare to the initial estimated cost or benchmark for similar construction projects?
Comparing the final contract price of $20.4 million to initial estimates or benchmarks is crucial for assessing value for money. Unfortunately, the provided data does not include the initial estimated cost. To perform this comparison, one would need access to pre-solicitation estimates or data from similar military construction projects (e.g., barracks, educational facilities) of comparable size and complexity in the same geographic region. Factors such as prevailing labor rates, material costs, and specific architectural requirements significantly influence project costs. A detailed analysis would involve benchmarking the price per square foot or per unit against industry standards and historical data for Department of Defense construction to determine if the awarded price was competitive and represented a fair value.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to monitor the contractor's progress and quality throughout the contract duration?
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a large construction contract like this typically focus on schedule adherence, cost control, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and overall project management. For the CORRY A SCHOOL BEQ, the Department of the Navy would likely have established KPIs such as meeting key construction milestones on time, maintaining the project within the fixed price, achieving a low number of defects or punch list items upon completion, adhering to safety regulations (e.g., zero lost-time incidents), and ensuring compliance with architectural and engineering specifications. Regular site inspections, progress reports, and quality assurance checks would be employed to monitor these KPIs. Failure to meet critical KPIs could result in contractual remedies or penalties, depending on the contract's terms and conditions.
What is the track record of Anderson Drace Joint Venture in executing similar large-scale federal construction projects?
Assessing the track record of Anderson Drace Joint Venture is vital for understanding their capability to successfully execute this $20.4 million project. Information on their past performance, particularly on federal contracts of similar size and scope (e.g., institutional or military construction), would be available through sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). A review would look for evidence of timely project completion, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A strong track record suggests a lower risk of performance issues, while a history of problems might indicate potential challenges for this current contract.
How has spending on similar construction projects at naval installations evolved over the past decade?
Spending on similar construction projects at naval installations has likely seen fluctuations influenced by defense budgets, infrastructure modernization priorities, and geopolitical factors. Over the past decade, there has been a consistent need for upgrades and new construction to support evolving military operational requirements and to address aging facilities. Factors such as the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, investments in force protection, and the development of new technologies have driven specific types of construction. Analyzing historical spending patterns would reveal trends in the types of facilities prioritized (e.g., housing, training, operational support), the average contract values, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-plus). This context helps evaluate whether the $20.4 million award for NAS Pensacola aligns with broader spending trends.
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: N6945010R0755
Offers Received: 34
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 11400 REICHOLD RD, GULFPORT, MS, 04
Business Categories: Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $20,429,316
Exercised Options: $20,429,316
Current Obligation: $20,429,316
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 21
Total Subaward Amount: $10,936,002
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-07-26
Current End Date: 2013-09-20
Potential End Date: 2013-09-20 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-03-26
More Contracts from Anderson Drace Joint Venture
- TAS::57 3307::TAS Recoveryproject#::p-3900::rp# Dormitory (144 RM), Keesler AFB, Biloxi, MS Arra::yes::arra — $16.2M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)