Army awards $29.2M for aircraft shelter construction in Alaska, completed in 2014

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,226,496 ($29.2M)

Contractor: Unit Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-18

End Date: 2014-06-09

Contract Duration: 1,909 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ELM288 7-BAY AIRCRAFT SHELTER

Place of Performance

Location: ELMENDORF AFB, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.2 million to UNIT COMPANY for work described as: ELM288 7-BAY AIRCRAFT SHELTER Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a large construction project of this nature. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Project duration was substantial, indicating potential for scope creep or complex execution. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Geographic location in Alaska may have presented unique logistical challenges and cost factors. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating a focus on larger prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $29.2 million for a 7-bay aircraft shelter is within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects, especially considering the potential complexities of building in Alaska. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects of this size and scope would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor bore the primary risk for cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 4 bidders, the competition level appears adequate, suggesting that the Army received multiple proposals. This level of competition generally supports price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive price for taxpayers by encouraging multiple contractors to bid and offer their best terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units stationed in Alaska requiring aircraft maintenance and protection. The contract delivered a critical infrastructure asset: a 7-bay aircraft shelter. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation in Alaska where the shelter was constructed. The project likely supported construction jobs in Alaska, both directly and indirectly through the supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long project duration (1909 days) could indicate potential for cost overruns or delays if not managed effectively.
Construction in remote or harsh environments like Alaska can introduce unforeseen logistical and cost challenges.
Firm Fixed Price contracts, while shifting risk, can sometimes lead to contractor disputes if scope is not clearly defined.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, likely yielding competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type is generally advantageous for the government by capping costs.
The project delivered a necessary infrastructure asset for military operations in a strategic location.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for military infrastructure. The construction of large aircraft shelters is a specialized segment requiring significant expertise and resources. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within Department of Defense construction budgets for similar facilities, which can vary widely based on size, location, and specific requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This suggests that the prime contract was awarded to a larger entity capable of undertaking a project of this magnitude. The absence of set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily be through subcontracting, if any were mandated or pursued by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures would include adherence to the contract terms, performance standards, and delivery schedules. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Construction Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Potential for logistical challenges due to Alaska location

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.2 million to UNIT COMPANY. ELM288 7-BAY AIRCRAFT SHELTER

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 $29.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-18. End: 2014-06-09.

What was the contractor's track record with similar large-scale construction projects, particularly in challenging environments like Alaska?

Without specific contractor performance data beyond 'UNIT COMPANY', it is difficult to assess their track record. However, for a contract of this size ($29.2M) awarded under full and open competition, it is reasonable to assume the contractor had demonstrated capabilities. Further investigation would involve reviewing past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS) for 'UNIT COMPANY' on similar Department of Defense construction projects, especially those in remote or Arctic regions. Experience with airfield infrastructure and large hangar-type structures would be particularly relevant. A history of successful project completion, on-time delivery, and within-budget performance would indicate a strong track record, while a pattern of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues would raise concerns.

How does the final contract value compare to the initial estimated cost or bids received from other competitors?

The provided data indicates a final award value of $29,226,496. To assess value for money, this figure needs to be compared against the initial government estimate (if available) and the bids submitted by the other three competitors. If the award was significantly lower than the estimate and competitive among the bidders, it suggests good value. Conversely, if the award was close to or exceeded the estimate, or if there was a large disparity between the winning bid and others, it might warrant further scrutiny. The firm fixed-price nature means the final cost is set, but understanding the bidding landscape is crucial for judging the initial price competitiveness.

What were the primary risk indicators associated with this specific contract, and how were they mitigated?

Key risk indicators for this contract likely included the challenging geographic location (Alaska), potentially leading to logistical hurdles, weather delays, and higher labor/material costs. The substantial duration of the contract (1909 days) also presents risks related to scope creep, contractor performance degradation over time, and potential economic fluctuations affecting material prices. Mitigation strategies would typically involve detailed contract specifications, robust project management oversight by the Army Corps of Engineers or relevant contracting activity, phased delivery schedules, and potentially contingency planning for weather or supply chain disruptions. The firm fixed-price contract itself mitigates cost overrun risk for the government, placing that burden on the contractor.

How effective was the project management and oversight in ensuring the timely and quality completion of the aircraft shelter?

The contract duration was 1909 days (approximately 5.2 years), which is a considerable timeframe for a construction project. Assessing effectiveness requires examining whether the project was completed within this duration and met quality standards. Without specific project completion reports or post-award performance reviews, it's difficult to definitively gauge effectiveness. However, a long duration can sometimes indicate challenges in execution, coordination, or unforeseen issues. Effective oversight would involve regular site inspections, progress meetings, and proactive issue resolution by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and project managers to ensure adherence to specifications and timelines.

What is the historical spending pattern for aircraft shelters or similar facilities by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on aircraft shelters and related military construction by the Department of the Army is substantial and occurs annually across various installations globally. This specific contract for $29.2 million in Alaska represents one component of a much larger capital investment program. Analyzing historical spending would involve looking at the Army's Military Construction, Defense (MILCON) budget accounts, specifically those allocated for aviation facilities, hangars, and maintenance structures. Trends in average project costs, contract types utilized, and competition levels for similar projects over the past decade would provide context for this $29.2 million award, helping to determine if it aligns with historical norms or represents an outlier.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the contract period, and what was their impact?

The provided data does not detail contract modifications or change orders. However, for a contract spanning 1909 days, it is common for some modifications to occur, especially if unforeseen site conditions arise or minor scope adjustments are needed. Significant modifications could impact the total cost and final delivery date. A thorough analysis would require accessing the contract file or modification history to understand the nature, value, and justification of any changes. If modifications substantially increased the cost or duration beyond initial expectations, it could indicate issues with the original scope definition or execution challenges.

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: W911KB08R0033

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 620 E WHITNEY RD, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,557,464

Exercised Options: $29,557,464

Current Obligation: $29,226,496

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline