Army awards $29.3M contract for Missile Field #2 site development, focusing on water and sewer infrastructure

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,283,720 ($29.3M)

Contractor: Unit Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-02

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,673 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MISSILE FIELD #2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PH III

Place of Performance

Location: DELTA JUNCTION, SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS County, ALASKA, 99737

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.3 million to UNIT COMPANY for work described as: MISSILE FIELD #2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PH III Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a multi-year infrastructure project of this scale. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. Project duration of over 4 years indicates potential for scope creep or schedule delays. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially impacting final cost. 5. Geographic location in Alaska may present unique logistical and environmental challenges. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237110 points to specialized construction services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $29.3 million for a multi-year infrastructure development project in Alaska is within a reasonable range for similar large-scale construction efforts. Benchmarking against other Army Corps of Engineers projects for site development and utility installation in remote or challenging environments would provide further context. The firm fixed-price structure, while beneficial for budget certainty, means that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which could influence their initial bid pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to bid. With 3 bids received, the level of competition appears moderate. This suggests that the government likely received competitive pricing, although a higher number of bidders could have potentially driven prices down further. The process allowed for a broad search for the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive bidding process, which aims to secure the most cost-effective solution for essential infrastructure development.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are military personnel and their families stationed at the Missile Field #2 facility, who will receive improved utility services. The project delivers critical water and sewer line infrastructure, essential for base operations and habitability. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Greely, Alaska, where the Missile Field #2 is located. The contract supports the construction workforce in Alaska, likely involving skilled trades and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the firm fixed-price contract type if unforeseen issues arise during construction.
Logistical challenges and higher costs associated with performing construction in remote Alaska.
Environmental considerations specific to the Alaskan region could impact project timelines and costs.
Long project duration increases the risk of material price fluctuations or labor availability issues.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for competitive pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
The project addresses essential infrastructure needs for a military installation.
Awarded to a single contractor, simplifying management and oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on heavy civil engineering and utility infrastructure. The market for such services, particularly in remote or challenging locations like Alaska, is specialized. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other Department of Defense or federal agency projects involving utility upgrades, site development, and construction in similar geographic and environmental conditions. The size of the contract suggests a significant undertaking requiring experienced contractors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting requirements. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award appears limited. However, the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors, depending on their own procurement practices and the availability of specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the project management team within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
Military Base Infrastructure Development
Alaska Construction Contracts
Federal Utility Infrastructure Projects
Water and Sewer System Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to fixed-price nature in a high-cost environment.
Logistical challenges inherent in remote Alaskan construction.
Long project duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Environmental compliance risks in sensitive Arctic ecosystems.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.3 million to UNIT COMPANY. MISSILE FIELD #2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PH III

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNIT COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-02. End: 2012-09-30.

What is the track record of 'UNIT COMPANY' in performing similar large-scale infrastructure projects for the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the specific track record of 'UNIT COMPANY' for similar large-scale infrastructure projects with the Department of Defense is not directly provided in the abbreviated data. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing contract performance databases (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) to review past performance evaluations, identify previous projects of similar scope and value, and assess their success in terms of cost, schedule, and quality. Without this data, it's difficult to definitively assess their capability and past performance on comparable federal contracts.

How does the awarded amount of $29.3 million compare to the estimated cost or budget for this Missile Field #2 site development project?

The provided data indicates the awarded amount is $29,283,720. However, it does not include the original estimated cost or budget for the Missile Field #2 Site Development Phase III project. To assess value for money, this awarded amount should be compared against the government's independent cost estimate (ICE) or the initial budget allocation. If the awarded amount is significantly lower than the estimate, it could indicate strong competition or effective negotiation. Conversely, if it's higher, it might suggest underestimation or unforeseen complexities. Further analysis requires access to the government's cost estimates for this specific project.

What are the primary risks associated with constructing water and sewer lines in a remote Alaskan environment, and how were they mitigated in this contract?

Constructing water and sewer lines in remote Alaska presents significant risks including extreme cold temperatures affecting materials and workability, permafrost instability impacting excavation and foundation integrity, limited access for heavy equipment and materials leading to higher logistical costs, shorter construction seasons due to weather, and potential environmental impacts on sensitive ecosystems. Mitigation strategies within the contract could include specialized construction techniques (e.g., above-ground piping, heated systems), detailed geotechnical surveys, phased construction to account for seasonal limitations, stringent environmental protection plans, and potentially higher contingency allowances within the contractor's bid. The firm fixed-price nature shifts some of this risk to the contractor, who must account for these factors in their pricing.

What is the expected impact of this infrastructure development on the operational readiness and quality of life at the military installation?

This infrastructure development is crucial for enhancing both operational readiness and the quality of life at the military installation. Reliable and modern water and sewer systems are fundamental for supporting personnel, housing, training facilities, and mission-critical operations. Improved utilities reduce the risk of service disruptions, enhance sanitary conditions, and contribute to a more sustainable and functional base environment. For personnel and their families, upgraded infrastructure directly translates to better living conditions and essential services, positively impacting morale and retention. The project ensures the base can effectively support its mission requirements.

How has federal spending on similar site development and utility construction projects in Alaska trended over the past five years?

Analyzing the trend of federal spending on similar site development and utility construction projects in Alaska over the past five years would require querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for contracts matching relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 237110, 236220) and geographic locations within Alaska, specifically for defense or other federal agencies. Such an analysis would reveal whether spending in this category has increased, decreased, or remained stable. Factors influencing trends could include military base modernization efforts, infrastructure investment initiatives, or changes in geopolitical priorities affecting defense installations in the region. This contract represents a significant single award within that potential trend.

Given the 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' award type, what flexibility does the government have to modify the scope or quantity of work over the contract's duration?

A 'Definitive Contract' is a standard contract type that specifies all details of the agreement, including quantity, price, and delivery terms, at the time of award. Unlike indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, definitive contracts generally offer less flexibility for scope changes. However, modifications are still possible through contract amendments, provided they are within the scope of the original contract and approved by the contracting officer. Significant changes might require a new procurement action. The government's ability to modify the scope or quantity is typically limited by the contract's clauses on changes and the overall intent established during the initial competition. The firm fixed-price nature further constrains modifications related to cost.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Utility System Construction › Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › UTILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W911KB08R0007

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 620 E. WHITNEY RD, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99501

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,285,456

Exercised Options: $29,285,456

Current Obligation: $29,283,720

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline