DoD's $63.8M Commercial Building Construction Contract Awarded Under Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $63,781,979 ($63.8M)
Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2011-03-31
End Date: 2012-10-31
Contract Duration: 580 days
Daily Burn Rate: $110.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: BASE ITEMS
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $63.8 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: BASE ITEMS Key points: 1. Significant investment in commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market. 3. The contract duration of 580 days indicates a substantial project scope. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $63.8 million for 580 days of construction is difficult to benchmark without specific project details. However, the number of base items (3) suggests a potentially complex or multi-faceted project.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This method generally promotes competitive pricing and allows the government to select the best value.
Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is a positive indicator for taxpayer value, as it encourages a wide range of offers and potentially drives down costs through market forces.
Public Impact
Supports the construction sector, potentially creating jobs and stimulating economic activity. Enhances the Department of Defense's infrastructure capabilities. Transparency in awarding contracts through open competition benefits public trust.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of specific details on awardees and project scope limits deeper analysis.
- The 'undisclosed' domestic awardees raise questions about transparency and potential concentration.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition.
- Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant area of government spending. Benchmarks for similar projects would depend heavily on location, size, and specific construction requirements.
Small Business Impact
While awarded under full and open competition, the data does not specify if small businesses were involved as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is a standard oversight mechanism. However, the lack of disclosed awardees warrants further scrutiny regarding accountability and transparency.
Related Government Programs
- Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Undisclosed awardees limit transparency.
- Lack of detailed project scope makes value assessment difficult.
- Potential for contractor risk in fixed-price contract if costs escalate.
- No indication of small business participation.
Tags
commercial-and-institutional-building-co, department-of-defense, definitive-contract, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $63.8 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). BASE ITEMS
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 $63.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-03-31. End: 2012-10-31.
What was the competitive landscape like for this specific construction project, and how did it influence the final price?
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. This typically involves multiple companies submitting proposals, allowing the agency to compare offers based on price, technical merit, and other factors. The competitive nature likely pressured bidders to offer competitive pricing to secure the contract, contributing to a potentially favorable outcome for the government.
What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a large construction project of this nature?
The primary risk with a firm fixed-price contract for construction is that the contractor bears the brunt of cost overruns. If material costs escalate unexpectedly or unforeseen site conditions arise, the contractor may incur losses, potentially leading to disputes, delays, or even contractor default. Conversely, if costs are lower than anticipated, the contractor benefits, which is the intended outcome for the government in terms of price certainty.
How effectively does the 'full and open competition' method ensure optimal value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts?
Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring taxpayer value in large construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to submit bids, it maximizes the pool of potential contractors, fostering robust competition. This competition typically drives down prices and encourages innovation as contractors vie for the contract, leading to better overall value compared to more restrictive procurement methods.
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: W5J9LE11R0014
Offers Received: 3
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: $63,781,979
Exercised Options: $63,781,979
Current Obligation: $63,781,979
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2011-03-31
Current End Date: 2012-10-31
Potential End Date: 2012-10-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-08-21
More Contracts from Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)
- Overseas Contract — $920.0M (Agency for International Development)
- Afghanistan Ministry of Interior/Afghan National Police Mentoring&training With Life Support Services — $876.2M (Department of Defense)
- Tasm-O Aviation Field Maintenance Igf::ot::igf — $870.9M (Department of Defense)
- Overseas Contract — $817.4M (Department of State)
- Overseas Contract — $806.0M (Department of State)
View all Domestic Awardees (undisclosed) federal contracts →
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)