Department of the Army awarded $36.3M for facilities construction, with 13 contracts under a firm-fixed-price agreement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,323,878 ($36.3M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-07-26

End Date: 2013-06-16

Contract Duration: 1,056 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FACILITIES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $36.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: FACILITIES Key points: 1. The contract value of $36.3M for facilities construction appears to be a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests a predictable cost structure for the government. 3. With 13 individual awards, the contract likely involved multiple phases or distinct construction projects. 4. The duration of the contract (1056 days) indicates a long-term commitment to these facilities. 5. The lack of specific details on awardees makes it difficult to assess contractor performance or market concentration. 6. The absence of small business set-asides may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work and the nature of the facilities constructed. However, a $36.3 million investment over approximately three years for construction projects suggests a substantial undertaking. Comparing this to similar large-scale construction contracts for government facilities would be necessary to determine if the pricing was competitive. The firm-fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the overall value for money depends heavily on the quality of execution and the long-term utility of the constructed facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach is generally favored for maximizing competition and achieving the best possible prices for the government. The fact that there were 13 individual awards suggests that the competition may have been broken down into smaller components or that multiple contractors were selected to fulfill different aspects of the overall facilities requirement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down prices through robust bidding and encourages a wider pool of contractors to participate, potentially leading to more cost-effective solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the newly constructed or improved facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, encompassing a broad range of potential facility types. The geographic impact is presumed to be domestic, given the 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' designation, likely supporting military operations or personnel housing. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, architects, and project managers involved in the execution of these projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific awardees hinders assessment of contractor experience and past performance.
The broad nature of 'facilities construction' makes it difficult to ascertain if the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions were pursued.
Without details on the specific types of facilities, it's hard to gauge if the investment aligns with current or future operational needs.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The multiple award structure (13 awards) could indicate efficient project management and distribution of work.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, particularly for agencies like the Department of Defense that require extensive infrastructure. This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction category, which encompasses a wide array of projects from administrative buildings to specialized operational facilities. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, capacity expansion, or replacement of aging infrastructure. Benchmarks for similar projects would typically consider factors like square footage, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This means that the competition was open to all businesses, regardless of size. While this maximizes the pool of potential bidders, it may limit direct opportunities for small businesses unless they are prime contractors on larger, non-set-aside awards or participate as subcontractors. The absence of specific subcontracting plans or goals makes it difficult to assess the downstream impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise. Transparency is limited by the lack of disclosed awardee information, making it difficult for the public to track specific performance or accountability. Contract modifications, performance reviews, and payment approvals would be key accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Transparency
Undisclosed Scope of Work Details
No Small Business Subcontracting Information

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $36.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). FACILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $36.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-07-26. End: 2013-06-16.

What specific types of facilities were constructed under this contract?

The provided data categorizes the work as 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' but does not specify the exact types of facilities. This could range from barracks and administrative offices to training facilities, maintenance depots, or other specialized structures required by the Department of the Army. Understanding the specific purpose and nature of these facilities is crucial for assessing their strategic value and ensuring the investment aligns with the Army's operational requirements and long-term infrastructure plans.

How does the total contract value of $36.3 million compare to typical federal facilities construction projects of similar scope?

Without knowing the specific scope, size, and complexity of the facilities constructed, a direct comparison is difficult. However, $36.3 million spread across 13 awards over approximately three years represents a substantial investment. Federal construction projects can vary widely in cost, from smaller renovations to large-scale new base construction. To benchmark this value effectively, one would need to compare it against projects with similar square footage, geographic location, construction type (e.g., barracks vs. research labs), and required security or specialized features.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of these construction projects?

The provided data does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used for this contract. Typically, for construction contracts, KPIs would include adherence to schedule, budget compliance (especially critical for firm-fixed-price contracts), quality of workmanship, safety record, and meeting all technical specifications outlined in the contract. Post-occupancy evaluations might also be used to assess the long-term functionality and user satisfaction with the completed facilities.

Can the track record of the awarded contractors be assessed, and if so, what is it?

The data explicitly states 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', meaning the identities of the contractors who received these 13 awards are not provided. Consequently, it is impossible to assess the track record, past performance, or experience of the specific companies involved in this contract. This lack of transparency limits the ability to evaluate the contractor's reliability, efficiency, and history of successful project completion for the government.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities construction by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?

The provided data only pertains to this specific contract and does not offer historical spending context. However, the Department of the Army, as a major branch of the DoD, consistently invests significant funds in facilities construction and maintenance to support its global operations and personnel. Annual budgets for military construction (MILCON) are substantial, reflecting the ongoing need to build, renovate, and modernize infrastructure. This $36.3 million contract would represent one component of the Army's broader facilities investment strategy for the period it covers (2010-2013).

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the life of this contract?

The provided summary data does not include information on contract modifications or change orders. Such details are typically found in more granular contract award files. Significant modifications could indicate unforeseen issues, scope changes, or adjustments in pricing. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the contract's flexibility, the effectiveness of initial planning, or potential cost overruns beyond the initial award amount.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W5J9LE10R0049

Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $36,323,878

Exercised Options: $36,323,878

Current Obligation: $36,323,878

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline