DoD's $34M Martin Redevelopment Contract Awarded to Aspen Construction Company for Heavy Civil Engineering
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $34,001,609 ($34.0M)
Contractor: Aspen Construction Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2020-08-03
End Date: 2024-12-15
Contract Duration: 1,595 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: TOWN OF MARTIN PHASE II REDEVELOPMENT SITE, MARTIN, KY
Place of Performance
Location: MARTIN, FLOYD County, KENTUCKY, 41649
State: Kentucky Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $34.0 million to ASPEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: TOWN OF MARTIN PHASE II REDEVELOPMENT SITE, MARTIN, KY Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single entity, raising questions about competitive pricing. 2. The contract duration of nearly 4.5 years suggests a significant, long-term project. 3. Heavy civil engineering construction is a critical but often complex sector. 4. The definitive contract type may offer flexibility but requires careful oversight. 5. The exclusion of sources in the competition process warrants further investigation. 6. Project location in Kentucky may have implications for local workforce and economic impact.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this $34 million contract is challenging without specific deliverables or comparable projects. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests cost certainty, but the absence of detailed cost breakdowns or performance metrics makes a thorough value assessment difficult. Comparing it to similar large-scale civil engineering projects would require more granular data on scope and complexity.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were intentionally excluded. The number of bidders (4) is provided, but the rationale for excluding other potential bidders is not detailed. This limited competition structure can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing compared to truly open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources means taxpayers may not have benefited from the lowest possible price that a fully open bidding process might have yielded. Further transparency on the exclusion criteria is needed to ensure fairness and optimal use of funds.
Public Impact
The Town of Martin, Kentucky, and surrounding areas are expected to benefit from the redevelopment. The project involves heavy and civil engineering construction, likely improving local infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Martin, Kentucky. The contract duration suggests potential for sustained local employment opportunities during construction.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpricing.
- The exclusion of sources needs clear justification to ensure fairness.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders assessment of project efficiency.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Long-term project duration can support stable employment.
- Awarding to a single construction company may streamline project management.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector (NAICS 237990), which encompasses a wide range of infrastructure projects. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government investment in public works and redevelopment. This specific contract appears to be a significant redevelopment effort within a specific geographic area, likely addressing aging infrastructure or facilitating economic revitalization.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb) was not a specific set-aside criterion for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem would primarily be indirect, through potential opportunities for smaller firms to subcontract with Aspen Construction Company, depending on the prime contractor's strategy.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this definitive contract would likely be managed by the Department of the Army contracting office. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, but further details on project progress and specific oversight activities would require access to agency reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects
- Appalachian Regional Commission Redevelopment Initiatives
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Projects
Risk Flags
- Limited competition
- Exclusion of sources
- Long contract duration
- Definitive contract type
Tags
construction, heavy-civil-engineering, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, limited-competition, kentucky, redevelopment, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $34.0 million to ASPEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. TOWN OF MARTIN PHASE II REDEVELOPMENT SITE, MARTIN, KY
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is ASPEN CONSTRUCTION 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 $34.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2020-08-03. End: 2024-12-15.
What is the specific nature of the redevelopment work being undertaken in Martin, KY?
The provided data classifies the contract under NAICS code 237990, 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.' This typically includes projects such as highways, streets, bridges, tunnels, and potentially site preparation for large industrial or commercial facilities. Given the 'Redevelopment Site' designation, the project likely involves remediation, demolition, grading, utility installation, and construction of new infrastructure or facilities within the specified area in Martin, Kentucky. Without more specific project descriptions or documentation, the exact scope remains generalized under heavy civil engineering.
How does Aspen Construction Company's track record compare for similar large-scale civil engineering projects?
Information on Aspen Construction Company's specific track record for large-scale civil engineering projects of this magnitude is not provided in the data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance on similar government contracts, including project completion history, adherence to budget and schedule, and any documented performance issues or accolades. Benchmarking against other firms with extensive experience in heavy civil engineering and redevelopment would be necessary to evaluate their suitability and potential risks associated with this contract.
What are the key risk indicators associated with a definitive contract of this size and duration?
Key risk indicators for a definitive contract of this size ($34M) and duration (nearly 4.5 years) include potential cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price is not adequately estimated for unforeseen complexities, scope creep if the project requirements evolve significantly, contractor performance issues leading to delays or quality defects, and challenges in maintaining effective government oversight over an extended period. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition also presents a risk if it limited the pool of qualified bidders, potentially impacting overall project quality or cost-effectiveness.
How does the $34 million contract value compare to typical spending in the heavy and civil engineering construction sector for federal agencies?
The $34 million contract value is a substantial sum, falling within the upper range for many individual civil engineering projects but not uncommon for large-scale redevelopment or infrastructure initiatives undertaken by federal agencies like the Department of Defense. Federal spending in this sector is often project-dependent, with major infrastructure programs or base redevelopment efforts easily reaching or exceeding this figure. Comparing it requires context on the specific scope and complexity; for instance, a major highway interchange or a large-scale environmental remediation project could easily cost tens or hundreds of millions.
What are the implications of the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' clause for taxpayer value?
This clause suggests that while the government intended to compete the contract, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded. The implications for taxpayer value are mixed. On one hand, competition generally drives down prices. However, if the excluded sources were less qualified or their exclusion was justified (e.g., based on past performance, specialized capabilities, or security concerns), the remaining competition might still yield good value. Conversely, if capable bidders were excluded without clear justification, taxpayers might have missed out on potentially lower bids, thus reducing overall value for money. Transparency regarding the reasons for exclusion is crucial for a full assessment.
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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID
Solicitation ID: W9123720B0002
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 3798 STATE 371 NW, HACKENSACK, MN, 56452
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $34,001,609
Exercised Options: $34,001,609
Current Obligation: $34,001,609
Actual Outlays: $10,751,586
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2020-08-03
Current End Date: 2024-12-15
Potential End Date: 2024-12-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-10-30
More Contracts from Aspen Construction Company
- Johnson County Phase II — $12.1M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)