Army awards $115M for power and communication line construction, highlighting firm fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $115,215,247 ($115.2M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-07-31

End Date: 2013-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,249 days

Daily Burn Rate: $92.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $115.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION Key points: 1. Contract awarded under firm fixed-price terms, indicating predictable costs for the government. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 1249 days points to a significant, long-term infrastructure project. 4. Construction of power and communication lines is critical for military readiness and operational support. 5. The undisclosed domestic awardees prevent specific contractor performance analysis. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting larger prime contractors were anticipated.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $115.2 million for power and communication line construction over approximately 3.5 years is substantial. Without specific details on the scope of work, geographic location, or comparable projects, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract generally provides cost certainty. Benchmarking against similar large-scale infrastructure projects within the Department of Defense would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation of pricing and value.

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 typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and quality. The number of bidders is not specified, which limits the assessment of the intensity of the competition. However, the use of full and open competition is generally considered a best practice for maximizing opportunities and achieving favorable outcomes.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, driving down prices and ensuring the government receives competitive offers for its infrastructure needs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its operational units requiring reliable power and communication infrastructure. Services delivered include the construction of power and communication lines, essential for military base operations and readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at specific military installations within the United States, though the exact locations are not detailed. The contract supports the construction workforce, potentially creating jobs in skilled trades and project management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific awardees and their track records.
Potential for cost overruns if the scope of work was not fully defined or if unforeseen issues arose during the long contract duration.
Limited insight into the competitive landscape due to the absence of bidder numbers.

Positive Signals

Awarded under firm fixed-price terms, providing cost predictability.
Utilized full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs for military operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically related to utilities and infrastructure. The market for large-scale power and communication line construction is often dominated by specialized engineering and construction firms. The value of $115.2 million is significant for a single contract, suggesting a project of considerable scale. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other major military base infrastructure upgrades or similar utility construction projects in the public or private sector.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contract was likely awarded to a large business capable of undertaking a project of this magnitude. There may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to the prime awardee, but this is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the subcontracting plans of the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program executive office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which places a significant portion of the cost risk on the contractor. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed nature of the awardees and specific project details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Infrastructure Projects
Utility Construction Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement
Federal Construction Spending

Risk Flags

Undisclosed Awardees
Long Contract Duration
Lack of Specific Scope Details

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $115.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION

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 $115.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-07-31. End: 2013-12-31.

What specific types of power and communication lines were constructed under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction' (NAICS 237130). This typically encompasses the installation, repair, and maintenance of electrical power transmission and distribution lines, as well as telecommunications infrastructure such as fiber optic cables, telephone lines, and associated support structures. Without more specific contract line item details, the exact scope of materials and systems installed remains undisclosed. However, such projects are fundamental to ensuring reliable energy and data flow for military installations, supporting everything from basic facility operations to advanced command and control systems.

How does the $115.2 million award compare to typical spending on similar Army construction projects?

The $115.2 million award is a substantial sum for a single construction contract. To benchmark this effectively, one would need to compare it against the average value of contracts awarded by the Department of the Army for similar power and communication line construction projects over a comparable period. Factors such as project complexity, geographic location (e.g., remote bases vs. established ones), and specific technological requirements significantly influence contract values. Generally, projects of this scale suggest a major upgrade or new construction initiative at one or more significant military installations, rather than routine maintenance.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this duration (1249 days)?

While firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty, a long duration like 1249 days (over 3 years) introduces specific risks. The primary risk for the contractor is underestimating costs due to unforeseen market fluctuations in labor, materials, or equipment over the extended period. Conversely, the government's risk is that the contractor may have inflated the initial price to account for these uncertainties, potentially leading to a less competitive bid. Scope creep, if not managed tightly through contract modifications, can also become a significant issue, potentially leading to disputes or cost increases despite the FFP nature. Ensuring robust initial scope definition and change control processes is crucial.

Given the 'full and open competition' award, why were the domestic awardees undisclosed?

The data indicates 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' for the contract. While the contract was competed under 'full and open competition,' the specific identity of the prime contractor(s) may be withheld from public disclosure for various reasons. These can include national security concerns, proprietary business information, or simply administrative choices in how contract award data is aggregated and released. In many cases, detailed awardee information becomes available through more granular contract databases or agency-specific reporting portals. The lack of disclosure here limits the ability to assess the contractor's past performance and specific expertise relevant to this project.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 237130 for this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237130 specifically identifies establishments primarily engaged in the construction of power and communication lines and related structures. This includes the erection of poles and overhead lines, the installation of underground conduits, and the construction of related infrastructure such as substations and towers. This code confirms the contract's focus on the physical building and installation of essential utility infrastructure, differentiating it from contracts focused solely on the provision of communication services or the manufacturing of related equipment.

What does the absence of small business participation indicators (ss: false, sb: false) imply?

The flags 'ss: false' (small business set-aside) and 'sb: false' (small business participation) suggest that this contract was not specifically targeted for small businesses, nor is there explicit data indicating their participation as prime contractors. This is common for large-scale, complex infrastructure projects where prime contractors are typically larger firms with the capacity, bonding, and specialized expertise required. While the prime contract may not have been set aside for small businesses, there is often an expectation or requirement for the prime contractor to subcontract a portion of the work to small businesses, though this specific contract's data does not detail such provisions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Utility System Construction › Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W5J9LE10R0061

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $202,514,346

Exercised Options: $115,215,247

Current Obligation: $115,215,247

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline