DOD awards $14.5M firm-fixed-price contract for construction services in Georgia

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,533,265 ($14.5M)

Contractor: Military & Federal Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-02-11

End Date: 2010-11-19

Contract Duration: 646 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SCHEDULE 1 - BASE BID

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.5 million to MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: SCHEDULE 1 - BASE BID Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. Competition level indicates a potentially competitive bidding environment. 4. Contract duration suggests a medium-term project with defined deliverables. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, highlighting defense sector priorities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $14.5 million for construction services appears within a reasonable range for a project of this nature, though specific benchmarks are unavailable without more detailed project scope. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is standard for construction, aiming to control costs. However, without comparable project data or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The absence of a specific Product Service Code (PSC) makes direct comparison to similar specialized services difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which suggests that while the intent was open competition, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. The presence of 14 bids indicates a healthy level of interest and competition. This level of bidding generally supports price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: With 14 bids received, taxpayers likely benefited from a competitive process that helped drive down the final contract price compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel stationed in Georgia, who will receive improved facilities. The contract delivers essential construction services for institutional buildings. The geographic impact is concentrated in Georgia, supporting local economic activity. The project will likely involve a workforce of construction laborers, tradespeople, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in construction, despite FFP.
Risk of delays impacting military readiness if project timelines are not met.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage subcontractors effectively.
Quality control challenges inherent in large-scale construction projects.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
A substantial number of bids (14) suggests a competitive market.
The contract is for a defined duration, providing clear project scope.
Awarded by a major federal agency (Department of Defense) indicates adherence to procurement standards.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220). This sector is a significant part of the broader construction industry, encompassing the building of non-residential structures like offices, schools, and government facilities. Federal spending in this area is crucial for maintaining and upgrading government infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale federal construction projects awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, or Department of Veterans Affairs.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, large federal construction contracts often create opportunities for small businesses as subcontractors, provided the prime contractor actively seeks them out.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are built into the firm-fixed-price contract terms, with penalties for non-performance or delays. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Procurement
Infrastructure Development Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost increases due to change orders
Risk of project delays impacting operational readiness
Contractor performance and financial stability concerns
Quality control and assurance challenges in construction
Unforeseen site conditions impacting schedule and budget

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.5 million to MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. SCHEDULE 1 - BASE BID

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-02-11. End: 2010-11-19.

What is the track record of MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

A comprehensive review of MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.'s federal contract history would require accessing databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or SAM.gov. This would reveal the number of contracts awarded, their values, agencies involved, and performance history. For this specific contract, the award itself indicates a successful bid. However, to assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any instances of contract disputes, timely delivery rates, and overall compliance with federal acquisition regulations. Without this detailed historical data, it's difficult to definitively characterize their reliability and past performance beyond this single award.

How does the awarded amount of $14.5 million compare to similar construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army in Georgia or similar regions?

Benchmarking this $14.5 million contract requires comparing it to similar construction projects by the Department of the Army or other federal agencies in Georgia or comparable geographic and economic regions. Key comparison factors include the type of facility being built (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training facilities), the square footage, the complexity of the construction, and the time of award. Without access to a database of comparable projects with detailed scopes and costs, a precise comparison is challenging. However, $14.5 million for a significant institutional building project is not uncommon for federal construction, but its value-for-money depends heavily on the specific deliverables and market conditions at the time of award.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract awarded in 2009?

The primary risk indicators for this firm-fixed-price (FFP) construction contract awarded in 2009 include potential for scope creep if the project requirements were not perfectly defined upfront, leading to change orders that could increase costs despite the FFP nature. Another risk is contractor performance; if MILITARY & FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. faced financial difficulties or management issues, project delays or quality compromises could occur. Given the award date, the risk of outdated construction methods or materials, or unforeseen site conditions not accounted for in the original bid, also exists. The 'limited' competition aspect, while having 14 bidders, could still mean that the chosen contractor faced less pressure than in a truly open competition, potentially impacting price or performance vigilance.

What does the duration of 646 days (approximately 21.5 months) imply about the complexity and scope of the construction project?

A contract duration of 646 days, or roughly 21.5 months, suggests a project of considerable complexity and scope. This timeframe is typical for substantial institutional or commercial building construction, which often involves extensive planning, site preparation, foundation work, structural assembly, interior finishing, and systems installation (HVAC, electrical, plumbing). Such a duration implies that the project likely involves significant square footage, potentially specialized architectural or engineering requirements, and a substantial workforce. It also indicates that the Department of the Army anticipated a medium-to-long-term commitment for the delivery of these new or renovated facilities.

How did the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method potentially affect the final price and contractor selection?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' method implies that the solicitation was initially intended for broad competition, but certain potential bidders were excluded based on specific criteria outlined in the solicitation (e.g., pre-qualification requirements, specific capabilities, or geographic limitations). While this method aims for competition, the exclusion of sources could potentially limit the number of highly competitive bids received compared to unrestricted full and open competition. The presence of 14 bids suggests that the exclusions did not stifle competition significantly in this instance. The final price would still be heavily influenced by the bids submitted by the qualified pool of contractors, and the government would select the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer or best value, depending on the evaluation criteria.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) in understanding this contract's purpose?

The NAICS code 236220 is crucial as it precisely defines the nature of the construction services being procured: the construction of non-residential buildings such as commercial establishments, industrial facilities, and public institutions. For the Department of the Army, this typically translates to building or renovating facilities like barracks, administrative offices, training centers, maintenance depots, or research laboratories. Understanding this code helps contextualize the contract's value and duration, as it differentiates it from residential construction or specialized infrastructure projects like roads or bridges. It also allows for comparison with other federal or private sector projects falling under the same classification.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: W9123608R0024

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 101 A MIDDLE ST, JACKSONVILLE, NC, 03

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,783,265

Exercised Options: $14,533,265

Current Obligation: $14,533,265

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline