Missile field expansion contract awarded to ASRC Builders LLC for over $18.3 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,346,005 ($18.3M)

Contractor: Asrc Builders LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-05-02

End Date: 2026-08-14

Contract Duration: 1,565 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FTG215 CONSTRUCTION OF MISSILE FIELD 1 EXPANSION

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GREELY, SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS County, ALASKA, 99731

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.3 million to ASRC BUILDERS LLC for work described as: FTG215 CONSTRUCTION OF MISSILE FIELD 1 EXPANSION Key points: 1. Contract awarded as a definitive contract with a firm fixed price. 2. The contract is for construction services related to a missile field expansion. 3. The contractor, ASRC Builders LLC, is a relatively new entity in federal contracting. 4. The contract duration is substantial, spanning over 1500 days. 5. The project is located in Alaska, potentially impacting local workforce and resources. 6. The contract was not competed, raising questions about price discovery and value.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this specific construction project is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparable project data. The firm fixed price structure offers some cost certainty, but the lack of competition means there's no direct market comparison to assess if the price is optimal. The total value of $18.3 million is significant for a single construction project, and its justification relies heavily on the necessity and scope of the missile field expansion.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically reserved for situations where only one responsible source can fulfill the requirement. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to solicit multiple bids and potentially secure a lower price through a competitive bidding process. It also raises questions about whether alternative solutions or contractors were adequately considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. The government's negotiating position is weakened without alternative offers to compare against.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its operational capabilities at the missile field. The contract delivers essential construction services for expanding critical defense infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, potentially creating local employment opportunities. The project may require specialized labor and materials, influencing the regional construction market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs.
Sole-source awards can indicate potential barriers to entry for other firms.
Long contract duration could present risks of cost overruns if not managed effectively.
The specific nature of missile field construction may involve unique security and logistical challenges.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to ASRC Builders LLC, potentially supporting a business with ties to the region.
The project addresses a stated need for defense infrastructure expansion.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the heavy and civil engineering construction sector, specifically related to defense infrastructure. The market for specialized construction services for military installations can be niche, often involving specific security clearances and technical expertise. While broad construction benchmarks exist, direct comparisons for missile field expansion are difficult to ascertain without more specific project details. The total federal spending on construction is in the billions annually, with defense infrastructure being a significant component.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-aside was not utilized (ss: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals (sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was not directed towards small businesses, and there may be limited direct opportunities for small business participation unless ASRC Builders LLC voluntarily includes them in their subcontracting plans. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this specific award, but it highlights a missed opportunity for small business engagement in federal construction projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed price contract type, which places the cost risk on the contractor. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, making public scrutiny of the pricing and selection process more difficult. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Heavy Civil Engineering Construction
Missile Defense Systems

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Limited contractor performance data available

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.3 million to ASRC BUILDERS LLC. FTG215 CONSTRUCTION OF MISSILE FIELD 1 EXPANSION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASRC BUILDERS 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 $18.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-05-02. End: 2026-08-14.

What is the track record of ASRC Builders LLC in federal contracting, particularly for projects of similar scale and complexity?

Information on ASRC Builders LLC's federal contracting history is limited, suggesting it may be a relatively new or less experienced entity in this space. Without a substantial portfolio of past performance, it is difficult to assess their capabilities and reliability for a project of this magnitude and criticality. Further investigation into their corporate structure, previous projects (even if not federal), and any relevant certifications or partnerships would be necessary to build a more complete picture of their track record. The sole-source award, in this context, means the government relied on other justifications for selecting this contractor, rather than extensive past performance data in a competitive environment.

How does the awarded amount of $18.3 million compare to similar missile field expansion projects or large-scale civil engineering construction contracts?

Direct comparisons for missile field expansion projects are challenging due to their specialized nature and often classified details. However, $18.3 million for a significant construction effort over several years is within the range for large civil engineering projects. For context, major infrastructure projects like bridge construction or highway expansions can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. The key differentiator here is the specific military application and the associated security and logistical requirements, which can influence costs. Without access to detailed project scopes and cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment against benchmarks is difficult. The lack of competition further complicates this comparison, as there's no market-driven price point.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for a large construction project like this?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for paying a higher price than would be achieved in a competitive environment. Without competing bids, the government lacks leverage to negotiate the best possible terms and pricing. There's also a risk that the chosen contractor may not be the most innovative or efficient, as the incentive to outperform competitors is absent. Furthermore, sole-source awards can sometimes indicate a lack of market research or an over-reliance on a single provider, which could create future dependencies. For taxpayers, this translates to a higher likelihood of the project costing more than necessary, with less transparency into the justification for that cost.

What are the potential implications of this contract on the local Alaskan economy and workforce?

A contract of this size and duration awarded in Alaska has the potential to create numerous jobs in the construction sector and related support industries. It could stimulate local businesses through the procurement of materials and services. However, the extent of this impact depends on ASRC Builders LLC's utilization of local labor and suppliers. If the company brings in a significant workforce from outside the state, the local economic benefit might be reduced. Additionally, the demand for specialized construction skills could strain the local labor market, potentially driving up wages for certain trades. The long-term impact also depends on the sustainability of the jobs created beyond the contract's completion.

How does the firm fixed price (FFP) contract type mitigate risks for the government in this project?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally favored by the government for its cost control benefits. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor assumes the majority of the risk for cost overruns. This means that ASRC Builders LLC is obligated to complete the project for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This structure provides the government with a high degree of cost certainty, as the final price is known upfront. It incentivizes the contractor to manage their costs efficiently and to perform the work within budget. However, it's crucial that the initial price is well-negotiated, especially in a sole-source scenario, to ensure it reflects a fair market value.

What is the historical spending pattern for missile field construction or similar defense infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on missile field construction and similar defense infrastructure projects by the Department of the Army is substantial and fluctuates based on geopolitical conditions, modernization efforts, and budget allocations. These projects are often multi-year, high-value endeavors requiring significant investment. While specific figures for missile field expansions are not publicly detailed due to security concerns, the Army consistently allocates billions of dollars annually towards maintaining and upgrading its facilities and weapon systems. Analyzing past spending on comparable large-scale construction projects within the Department of Defense can provide a broader context for the $18.3 million awarded here, indicating whether this amount is typical, high, or low for such undertakings.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 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: W911KB22R0022

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

Address: 3900 C ST STE 305, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,461,325

Exercised Options: $18,346,005

Current Obligation: $18,346,005

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 12

Total Subaward Amount: $3,576,657

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline