Department of the Army awards $13M contract for chapel construction to Bristol Design Build Services, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,998,688 ($13.0M)

Contractor: Bristol Design Build Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-03-29

End Date: 2008-09-15

Contract Duration: 536 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCT CHAPEL

Place of Performance

Location: EIELSON AFB, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR County, ALASKA, 99702

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.0 million to BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, LLC for work described as: CONSTRUCT CHAPEL Key points: 1. The contract was awarded using a 'not available for competition' method, raising questions about potential cost savings from broader bidding. 2. The fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and budget, which can mitigate cost overruns if well-managed. 3. The duration of 536 days indicates a significant construction project requiring substantial oversight. 4. The contract was awarded in Alaska, potentially impacting local labor and material sourcing. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this was not specifically targeted to boost small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12,998,688 for industrial building construction, specifically a chapel, is difficult to benchmark without more detailed project specifications. However, the 'not available for competition' award type suggests that a competitive bidding process was not utilized, which can sometimes lead to higher prices than if multiple firms had vied for the contract. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the overall value for money is questionable without comparative data on similar chapel construction projects or market rates for such specialized facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'not available for competition' justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This typically occurs when only one source is capable of meeting the agency's needs, or in specific circumstances like urgent requirements or follow-on work. The lack of competition means there were no other bidders to compare against, potentially limiting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the lowest possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, there's less assurance that the selected contractor offered the most cost-effective solution available in the market.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families stationed at the facility will benefit from the new chapel, providing a space for religious services and community activities. The construction project will likely involve local labor and material suppliers in Alaska, contributing to the regional economy. The delivery of this facility supports the Department of Defense's infrastructure and quality-of-life initiatives for service members. The project's completion will enhance the amenities available at the specific Army installation in Alaska.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than a fully competed contract.
The 'not available for competition' justification requires scrutiny to ensure it was truly warranted.
Project scope and potential for change orders under a fixed-price contract need careful management to control costs.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a specific LLC indicates a chosen entity capable of performing the work.
Contract duration is defined, allowing for project planning and resource allocation.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly for specialized government facilities like chapels, involves unique requirements and often requires contractors with specific experience and security clearances. The Department of Defense is a significant client within this sector, awarding numerous contracts for infrastructure development and maintenance. Benchmarking this $13 million project would ideally involve comparing it to other religious facility constructions or similar specialized building projects within the federal government or for large private institutions, considering regional cost variations in Alaska.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor, Bristol Design Build Services, LLC, is not flagged as a small business in this context. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. This means that opportunities for small business participation may be limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily includes them in their subcontracting efforts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and engineering commands. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed budget. Transparency would be enhanced through public contract databases and reporting, though the specifics of the 'not available for competition' justification would be a key area for review by oversight bodies or inspectors general if concerns arise.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Religious Facility Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Industrial Building Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award requires justification review.
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition.
Alaska's logistical challenges may impact cost and schedule.
Firm fixed-price requires careful scope management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.0 million to BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, LLC. CONSTRUCT CHAPEL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-29. End: 2008-09-15.

What specific factors led to the 'not available for competition' justification for this chapel construction contract?

The 'not available for competition' (NOC) justification for federal contracts is typically invoked when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's requirements. For a construction project like a chapel, this could stem from highly specialized design needs, unique site requirements, urgent operational needs that preclude a lengthy competition, or situations where a specific contractor possesses proprietary technology or expertise essential for the project. Without further details from the Department of the Army's justification document, it's impossible to pinpoint the exact reason. However, such justifications are subject to review to ensure they are valid and that the government did not forgo potential cost savings or better solutions by not competing the award.

How does the firm fixed-price contract type impact the risk profile for both the government and the contractor on this project?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor. The contractor agrees to a set price for the defined scope of work, and any costs incurred above that price are their responsibility. This benefits the government by providing cost certainty and predictability. For the contractor, the risk is higher, as they must accurately estimate all costs, including labor, materials, overhead, and potential unforeseen issues, to ensure profitability. If the scope of work is well-defined and the contractor has strong project management capabilities, an FFP contract can be very efficient. However, if the scope is ambiguous or significant unforeseen challenges arise, the contractor may face financial losses, potentially impacting project quality or completion if not managed carefully.

What is the typical cost range for constructing a military chapel of this size and scope, and how does this contract compare?

Determining a precise 'typical' cost for a military chapel is challenging due to variations in size, materials, location (especially remote or high-cost areas like Alaska), specific architectural requirements, and the inclusion of ancillary facilities. However, projects of this scale, involving specialized construction and potentially significant square footage for a place of worship and associated functions, can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars. The $13 million award for this project falls within a plausible range for a substantial government construction undertaking. Without detailed specifications of the chapel's size, amenities, and the specific construction challenges in its Alaskan location, a direct comparison to establish value for money is difficult. A more robust analysis would require comparing it to similar recently awarded military construction projects or specialized religious facility builds.

What are the potential implications of awarding a large construction contract in Alaska, particularly regarding labor and materials?

Awarding a large construction contract in Alaska often presents unique logistical and cost considerations. The state's remote geography can increase transportation costs for materials and equipment. Labor costs may also be higher due to the cost of living, specialized skills required, and potentially limited local workforce availability, necessitating travel and housing for workers. Furthermore, environmental regulations and the need to work within specific seasonal windows (due to weather) can impact project timelines and costs. For this $13 million chapel project, the contractor likely factored these Alaskan-specific challenges into their bid. The government's oversight would need to ensure that the contractor is effectively managing these logistical hurdles and that costs associated with them are reasonable and justified.

What oversight mechanisms are typically in place for a Department of the Army construction contract of this magnitude?

Oversight for a Department of the Army construction contract of this magnitude typically involves multiple layers. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or a designated government engineer/architect is usually assigned to monitor the contractor's progress, ensure compliance with contract specifications, quality standards, and safety regulations. Periodic site inspections, progress meetings, and review of payment requests are standard. The Army Corps of Engineers often plays a role in project management and quality assurance for significant construction projects. Additionally, contract close-out procedures and potential audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Inspector General's office ensure financial accountability and compliance with regulations throughout the contract lifecycle.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911KB06R0019

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 111 W 16TH AVE STE 303, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,998,688

Exercised Options: $12,998,688

Current Obligation: $12,998,688

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline