DOD Awards $28M Construction Contract to Roebbelein Contracting Inc for GIB Part 2 @ POM

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,041,017 ($28.0M)

Contractor: Roebbelen Contracting Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-06-30

End Date: 2010-12-27

Contract Duration: 910 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: GIB PART 2 @ POM

Place of Performance

Location: MONTEREY, MONTEREY County, CALIFORNIA, 93940

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.0 million to ROEBBELEN CONTRACTING INC for work described as: GIB PART 2 @ POM Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 910 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 3. Fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government, shifting risk to the contractor. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DOD. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract was awarded by DCA, likely a contracting activity within the Department of the Army. 7. The contract was awarded in June 2008 and completed in December 2010.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparable project data. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the award implies that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the project is completed within budget. The total award amount of approximately $28 million for a construction project of this duration suggests a substantial undertaking, and its value would be best assessed against similar large-scale institutional building projects.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 4 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition for this project. A competitive bidding process generally helps to ensure that the government receives fair market prices and that taxpayer funds are used efficiently. The number of bidders can be an indicator of market interest and the perceived attractiveness of the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically leads to more competitive pricing, potentially saving taxpayer money compared to sole-source or limited competition awards. A healthy number of bidders ensures that the government is not overpaying due to a lack of viable alternatives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will utilize the completed facility. The project involves the construction of commercial and institutional buildings, contributing to military infrastructure. The geographic impact is centered in California, where the project was executed. The construction activities would have implications for the local workforce, creating jobs in the construction trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract did not adequately account for all project contingencies.
Risk of delays in project completion impacting the operational readiness of the facility.
Quality control issues during construction could lead to long-term maintenance problems.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Project completed within the specified timeframe (June 2008 - December 2010).

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the federal spending landscape, encompassing a wide range of projects from infrastructure to facility upgrades. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a category that includes the building of non-residential structures for public or private use. The federal government is a major consumer of construction services, awarding billions annually for new facilities, renovations, and maintenance across various agencies. Benchmarking this $28 million contract would involve comparing it to other large-scale institutional construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies in similar geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting if ROEBBELEIN CONTRACTING INC chose to engage them. Without specific subcontracting data, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular award is unclear, but it represents a missed opportunity for direct small business prime contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the contracting activity (DCA) within the Department of the Army. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by placing the financial risk on the contractor. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Projects
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
Federal Building Construction
Institutional Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if estimates were inaccurate.
Risk of quality compromises if contractor seeks to reduce costs.
Dependency on contractor's ability to manage schedule and resources effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.0 million to ROEBBELEN CONTRACTING INC. GIB PART 2 @ POM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROEBBELEN CONTRACTING 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 $28.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-06-30. End: 2010-12-27.

What was the specific nature of the 'GIB PART 2 @ POM' project?

The 'GIB PART 2 @ POM' project likely refers to a specific phase or component of a larger construction initiative at a facility designated as 'POM'. Without further context or access to the contract's detailed statement of work, the precise nature of the construction (e.g., new building, renovation, specific systems installation) remains unspecified. However, given the NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), it involved the erection, alteration, or repair of non-residential buildings. 'GIB PART 2' could denote a second phase of work, and 'POM' might be an acronym for a military base, installation, or program.

How does the $28 million award compare to other similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $28 million award requires access to a database of similar Department of the Army construction contracts, ideally those awarded within the same timeframe and for comparable types of facilities. Generally, $28 million is a substantial sum for a single construction project, indicating a significant undertaking. The Department of the Army, particularly through the Army Corps of Engineers, manages numerous large-scale construction projects annually. To assess if this award represents good value, one would need to benchmark it against projects of similar scope, complexity, and location, considering factors like duration, contract type, and the number of bidders. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if it was competitively priced or represented excellent value.

What were the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) construction contract, while generally favorable to the government in terms of cost certainty, still carry inherent risks. For the contractor, the main risk is underestimating costs, leading to reduced profit margins or even losses if unforeseen issues arise during construction (e.g., unexpected site conditions, material price escalations, labor shortages). For the government, the risk lies in the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability, necessitating robust oversight and quality assurance measures. Delays, even with an FFP contract, can impact the government's operational needs, although the financial burden of delays caused by the contractor typically falls on them.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in California?

The significance of the contract being awarded and executed in California relates to several factors. Firstly, it implies that the construction services were likely sourced from contractors operating within or familiar with the California market, potentially including local small businesses for subcontracting. Secondly, it means the project contributed to the local economy through job creation and the use of local resources. Thirdly, construction projects in California are subject to specific state and local regulations, building codes, environmental standards, and labor laws, which the contractor would have had to adhere to. The presence of federal construction projects can also influence local real estate markets and infrastructure development.

Were there any performance issues or disputes reported during the contract's execution?

Information regarding specific performance issues, disputes, or contract modifications for this particular award is not directly available from the provided summary data. Contract performance databases often track such events, but this level of detail is typically not included in high-level award summaries. Generally, for a contract of this size and duration, some level of change orders or minor disputes might be expected. However, significant performance issues or unresolved disputes could lead to contract modifications, claims, or even termination for default, none of which are indicated in the basic award information. Further investigation through contract modification logs or agency performance reports would be necessary to ascertain any such issues.

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: W9123808R0010

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1241 HAWKS FLIGHT CT STE 100, EL DORADO HILLS, CA, 05

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,041,017

Exercised Options: $28,041,017

Current Obligation: $28,041,017

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline