DoD awards $37.5M for F-35 simulator facility construction in Alabama

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $37,493,059 ($37.5M)

Contractor: Bear Brothers Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-08-31

End Date: 2025-11-28

Contract Duration: 1,185 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF THE F35 SIMULATOR FACILITY AND BASE SUPPLY COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE 187FW, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

Place of Performance

Location: MONTGOMERY, MONTGOMERY County, ALABAMA, 36108

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $37.5 million to BEAR BROTHERS INC for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF THE F35 SIMULATOR FACILITY AND BASE SUPPLY COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE 187FW, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in critical training infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding environment for this project. 3. Project duration of nearly three years indicates a substantial construction undertaking. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and manage budget predictability. 5. Geographic concentration of the project in Alabama may offer local economic benefits.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $37.5 million for the F-35 simulator facility and base supply complex appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to contain costs, but actual value will depend on the final quality and adherence to the original budget.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources may have been excluded based on specific criteria. With 4 bidders, the competition level suggests a moderate level of interest, which can contribute to price discovery but may not be as robust as full and open competition without exclusions. This approach could potentially lead to higher prices than a fully open process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure a fair price, though the exclusion of certain sources might limit the full potential for cost savings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force personnel who will utilize the F-35 simulator for advanced training. The project delivers essential infrastructure for pilot training and operational readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in Montgomery, Alabama, potentially creating local jobs and economic activity during construction. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting training readiness.
Dependence on specialized construction expertise for simulator facility integration.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Defined project scope for simulator facility and supply complex.
Experienced contractor likely selected through a competitive process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically supporting defense infrastructure. The market for military construction is substantial, driven by the need for specialized facilities to support advanced weapon systems like the F-35. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects, particularly those involving training facilities or complex operational support structures.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This suggests that the prime contractor may not be obligated to subcontract a significant portion of the work to small businesses, potentially limiting opportunities for the small business ecosystem on this particular project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army, with potential involvement from the Air Force given the F-35 program. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract type, which incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific oversight mechanisms for construction quality and progress would be detailed in the contract itself.

Related Government Programs

F-35 Program Support Contracts
Military Construction Projects
Defense Training Facilities
Base Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to construction complexity.
Risk of schedule delays impacting training operations.
Limited competition due to source exclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $37.5 million to BEAR BROTHERS INC. CONSTRUCTION OF THE F35 SIMULATOR FACILITY AND BASE SUPPLY COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE 187FW, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BEAR BROTHERS INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $37.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-08-31. End: 2025-11-28.

What is the historical spending by the Department of Defense on similar F-35 training infrastructure projects?

Historical spending data for similar F-35 training infrastructure projects by the Department of Defense is not directly available in this dataset. However, the F-35 program itself represents a massive investment, and the development of associated training facilities, including simulators and support complexes, is a critical component. Analyzing past awards for simulator construction, base supply facilities, and other specialized military construction over the last decade would provide a broader context. Such an analysis would likely reveal significant, multi-million dollar investments in facilities supporting advanced aircraft programs, reflecting the complexity and cost associated with maintaining operational readiness for fifth-generation fighter jets.

How does the per-unit cost of this simulator facility compare to other military construction projects of similar scale?

A direct per-unit cost comparison for this simulator facility is challenging without more specific data on the facility's size, complexity, and the specific components included in the $37.5 million award. Military construction projects vary widely in cost based on location, security requirements, specialized equipment integration, and labor costs. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare this contract against other awards for large institutional buildings, particularly those with specialized technical requirements, within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies. Factors like square footage, specialized environmental controls, and the integration of high-tech simulation equipment would heavily influence the per-unit cost.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this construction contract, and how will they be measured?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for this construction contract are not explicitly detailed in the provided data but would typically be outlined in the contract's statement of work and performance clauses. Common KPIs for large construction projects include adherence to schedule milestones, quality of workmanship (meeting specified standards and codes), safety performance (incident rates), and budget management. Measurement would likely involve regular site inspections by government representatives, progress reports submitted by the contractor, independent quality assurance checks, and potentially third-party reviews. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractual remedies, including penalties or withholding of payments.

What is the track record of BEAR BROTHERS INC in completing large-scale federal construction projects, particularly for the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the specific track record of BEAR BROTHERS INC in completing large-scale federal construction projects, particularly for the Department of Defense, is not provided in this dataset. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance on similar contracts, including project size, complexity, on-time delivery, budget adherence, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Federal procurement databases and contractor performance assessment reporting systems (CPARS) would be the primary sources for evaluating their past performance and suitability for this significant project.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method for this project?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method, while intended to foster competition, carries specific risks. The exclusion of certain sources, even if justified by specific criteria, inherently limits the pool of potential bidders. This reduction in competition could potentially lead to less aggressive pricing than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. Furthermore, if the exclusion criteria are perceived as overly restrictive or not adequately justified, it could raise questions about fairness and potentially lead to protests. The government must clearly articulate the rationale for excluding sources to mitigate these risks and ensure the best value is obtained for taxpayers.

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: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W50S6N22B0001

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Bear Lumber Company, Inc.

Address: 220 MENDEL PKWY W, MONTGOMERY, AL, 36117

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,493,059

Exercised Options: $37,493,059

Current Obligation: $37,493,059

Actual Outlays: $18,919,376

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline