Kiewit Infrastructure Co. awarded $27.4M contract for construction services in Alaska by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,381,571 ($27.4M)

Contractor: Kiewit Infrastructure CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-06-28

End Date: 2009-10-13

Contract Duration: 1,568 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: ELMENDORF AFB, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.4 million to KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of approximately 4 years indicates a significant, long-term project. 3. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a defense-related construction need. 5. The contract was awarded in Alaska, suggesting a specific geographic requirement. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $27.4 million for a multi-year construction project in Alaska appears within a reasonable range for large-scale infrastructure. Without specific details on the scope of work, direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the initial bid was considered competitive and that the contractor assumes the risk for cost overruns. Benchmarking the value would require detailed cost breakdowns and comparison with similar projects in similar geographic and environmental conditions.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 6 bidders, as indicated by the data, suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. A competitive bidding process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are likely being used efficiently, as multiple companies vied for the contract, driving down prices and improving service offerings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially military personnel stationed in Alaska, who will receive improved facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new structures or significant renovations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, potentially supporting regional economic activity through construction jobs. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs in Alaska, benefiting local labor markets.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occur, despite the fixed-price nature.
Dependence on Kiewit Infrastructure Co.'s capacity and performance for timely and quality completion.
Geographic remoteness of Alaska could introduce logistical challenges and increase costs.
Limited information on specific performance metrics or quality assurance during the contract period.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Awarded through full and open competition with multiple bidders, indicating competitive pricing.
Contract duration of over 3 years suggests a significant and well-defined project.
Contractor has a track record in large-scale infrastructure projects.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure development and facility maintenance. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a broad category that includes a wide range of projects from administrative buildings to specialized facilities. Federal spending in this sector is often driven by modernization needs, base improvements, and new construction requirements across various agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar types of buildings in similar climates and regions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting requirements for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Kiewit Infrastructure Co., may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses as part of their overall project management strategy. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Kiewit actively seeks out and engages small business subcontractors for specialized services or materials.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, which penalize the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Buildings Fund
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Alaska's challenging environment.
Risk of delays impacting project completion timeline.
Quality control concerns inherent in large construction projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.4 million to KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-06-28. End: 2009-10-13.

What is the specific nature of the construction services provided under this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 indicates that the contract is for Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. This broad category typically includes the construction of new buildings, additions, alterations, and renovations for a wide range of non-residential structures. Examples could include administrative facilities, barracks, training centers, warehouses, or other support buildings required by the Department of the Army. The specific scope of work would be detailed in the contract's statement of work, outlining the exact type of construction, specifications, and deliverables expected from Kiewit Infrastructure Co.

How does the $27.4 million award compare to typical construction project costs for the Department of the Army in Alaska?

Comparing the $27.4 million award requires context regarding the specific type and scale of construction. For large-scale infrastructure or major facility construction in remote or challenging environments like Alaska, this figure can be considered moderate. The Department of the Army undertakes a variety of construction projects, ranging from minor renovations to entirely new base developments. Factors such as labor costs, material availability, transportation logistics, and environmental considerations in Alaska can significantly influence project costs. Without detailed project specifications, it's difficult to benchmark precisely, but the award suggests a substantial project requiring significant resources and expertise.

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

The primary risk for the government in a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maximize profit if costs increase unexpectedly. However, the main risk is borne by the contractor, who is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. For Kiewit Infrastructure Co., risks include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., permafrost issues in Alaska), material price escalations, labor shortages, or delays caused by weather or logistical challenges, all of which could impact their profitability. The government's risk is primarily related to ensuring the contractor meets quality standards and project deadlines within the fixed price.

What is Kiewit Infrastructure Co.'s track record with federal construction contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Kiewit Infrastructure Co. is a major player in the construction industry with a significant history of undertaking large-scale federal projects, including many for the Department of Defense and other government agencies. They have experience in various types of construction, including infrastructure, heavy civil, and building construction. While specific details of their past performance on similar Department of the Army contracts in Alaska are not provided in this data snippet, their general reputation and extensive portfolio suggest they possess the capacity and experience to handle complex federal construction endeavors. A deeper dive into their contract performance history, including any past issues or commendations, would provide a more complete picture.

How does the competition level (6 bidders) influence the value and taxpayer benefit for this contract?

A competition level of six bidders is generally considered robust for a federal contract of this nature. A higher number of bidders typically intensifies competition, driving down prices and encouraging contractors to offer their best value propositions. This means the government is more likely to secure a fair market price for the construction services. For taxpayers, this translates to a more efficient use of funds, as the competitive process helps ensure that the contract award reflects a balance between cost and quality, minimizing the potential for overpayment. The presence of multiple bidders also suggests that the market has sufficient capacity to meet the government's needs.

What are the potential long-term implications of this construction project for the military installation in Alaska?

This construction project likely aims to improve or expand facilities at a Department of the Army installation in Alaska. The long-term implications could include enhanced operational capabilities, improved living or working conditions for service members, increased capacity for personnel or equipment, or modernization of aging infrastructure. For example, new barracks could improve quality of life, while upgraded training facilities could enhance readiness. The construction itself may also stimulate the local Alaskan economy through job creation and the use of local resources. Ultimately, the project should contribute to the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the military presence in the region.

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

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Peter Kiewit Sons Inc (UEI: 070729517)

Address: 1577 C ST STE 101, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline