DoD's $35.5M construction contract for utilities and engineering services awarded via full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,493,042 ($35.5M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-08-07

End Date: 2014-04-30

Contract Duration: 997 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 215TH UTILITIES, ENGINEERING, QRF AND

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: 215TH UTILITIES, ENGINEERING, QRF AND Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in essential infrastructure support. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract (997 days) indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but could limit flexibility. 5. The specific services (utilities, engineering, QRF) are critical for operational readiness. 6. The undisclosed domestic awardees prevent a direct assessment of contractor experience.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $35.5 million contract is challenging without knowing the specific scope of utilities, engineering, and QRF services. However, for a nearly three-year duration, the average annual spend is approximately $12 million. This figure needs to be compared against similar large-scale construction and engineering support contracts awarded by the Department of the Army to determine if it represents a reasonable investment. The fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, but the absence of detailed performance metrics makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 6 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While multiple bidders are positive, the specific number (6) needs to be contextualized against the typical number of bids received for similar large-scale construction and engineering contracts within the Department of Defense to fully assess the competitive landscape and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more favorable pricing and better service offerings. The fact that six bids were received suggests that the government likely received a range of proposals, increasing the likelihood of a cost-effective award.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families stationed at the facility benefit from reliable utilities and operational support. The contract ensures the provision of essential engineering and quick reaction force (QRF) services, crucial for base operations and security. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation where the services are being performed. The contract likely supports a workforce of skilled tradespeople, engineers, and support staff, contributing to local employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific awardees hinders assessment of contractor past performance and potential conflicts of interest.
The broad nature of 'utilities, engineering, QRF' could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost increases if not tightly managed.
Fixed-price contracts can sometimes disincentivize innovation or proactive problem-solving by contractors if not structured with performance incentives.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust vetting of potential contractors.
The fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost predictability for the government.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs, ensuring operational continuity for a military installation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on the provision of utilities, engineering, and quick reaction force (QRF) services. This is a critical segment for government operations, ensuring the functionality and security of facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction and facilities management contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar scope and duration. The market for such services is typically characterized by a mix of large, established construction firms and specialized engineering companies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. However, large prime contractors may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan, if any.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting and program management offices. The fixed-price nature of the contract implies that performance standards and delivery schedules are key areas of oversight. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed awardees. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Operations Support
Facilities Engineering Services
Emergency Services Contracts
Public Works Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Transparency
Broad Service Scope
Potential for Scope Creep
Fixed-Price Risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). 215TH UTILITIES, ENGINEERING, QRF AND

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 $35.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-08-07. End: 2014-04-30.

What specific types of utilities and engineering services are included under this contract?

The contract description '215TH UTILITIES, ENGINEERING, QRF AND' is quite broad. Utilities typically encompass electrical power, water, wastewater, and potentially heating/cooling systems. Engineering services could range from design and maintenance to specialized technical support for infrastructure. The 'QRF' (Quick Reaction Force) component suggests services related to rapid response for facility issues or emergencies. Without further details or access to the contract's statement of work, the precise scope remains undefined, making a granular assessment of value and performance challenging.

How does the $35.5 million value compare to similar DoD utility and engineering contracts?

Comparing the $35.5 million value requires context regarding the duration and specific services. For a contract spanning nearly three years (997 days), this averages around $12 million annually. To assess value, this figure should be benchmarked against similar indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) or definitive contracts for base operations support, utilities management, and engineering services awarded by the Department of the Army or other branches of the DoD. Factors like geographic location, facility size, and the complexity of the required services significantly influence pricing, making direct comparisons difficult without detailed service scope information.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract of this magnitude and duration?

A primary risk with a fixed-price contract of this size and duration ($35.5M over 997 days) is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or service to maximize profit, especially if the initial pricing was aggressive. Conversely, unforeseen circumstances or scope creep not adequately managed could lead to contractor claims for additional costs, potentially negating the fixed-price benefit. The government also bears the risk if the initial cost estimate was too high. Effective oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives the intended value.

What does the 'undisclosed domestic awardees' information imply about contractor track record and accountability?

The 'undisclosed domestic awardees' status significantly hampers a thorough analysis of the contractor's track record and accountability. Typically, identifying the awardee allows for a review of their past performance on similar contracts, their financial stability, and any history of disputes or performance issues. Without this information, it's impossible to assess if the selected contractor has a proven history of successfully delivering complex utility, engineering, and QRF services. This lack of transparency raises concerns about due diligence and the ability to hold the contractor accountable for performance.

How does the number of bids (6) influence the assessment of competition and potential price savings?

Receiving six bids under a full and open competition is generally a positive indicator of a competitive marketplace for the services required. A higher number of bids typically increases the likelihood that the government received competitive pricing, as contractors vie for the award. While six bids suggest a reasonable level of interest, the optimal number for maximizing price savings can vary depending on the complexity and niche nature of the services. Without knowing the typical bid count for similar DoD contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if six bids resulted in significant price savings, but it certainly provides a better foundation for negotiation than a sole-source or limited competition award.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (997 days) on service continuity and potential contractor performance?

A contract duration of 997 days (approximately 2.7 years) suggests a long-term, stable requirement for essential utilities, engineering, and QRF services. This continuity is beneficial for the government, ensuring uninterrupted support for the military installation. For the contractor, a longer duration can provide revenue stability and an opportunity to build expertise specific to the site. However, it also increases the risk of performance degradation over time if oversight is lax or if the contractor becomes complacent. Regular performance reviews and contract management are essential throughout the contract's life cycle.

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: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W5J9LE11B0004

Offers Received: 6

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: $35,493,042

Exercised Options: $35,493,042

Current Obligation: $35,493,042

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline