DoD's $15.7M Hydrant Fuel System Contract Awarded to Rockford Corporation for Hill AFB

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,721,960 ($15.7M)

Contractor: Rockford Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-05-22

End Date: 2011-04-14

Contract Duration: 692 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: HYDANT FUEL SYSTEM, HILL AFB, UT

Place of Performance

Location: HILL AFB, DAVIS County, UTAH, 84056

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.7 million to ROCKFORD CORPORATION for work described as: HYDANT FUEL SYSTEM, HILL AFB, UT Key points: 1. The contract value of $15.7 million represents a significant investment in critical infrastructure at Hill Air Force Base. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, this contract suggests a competitive bidding process was likely employed. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns. 4. The duration of 692 days suggests a substantial construction project requiring extensive planning and execution. 5. The contract's focus on industrial building construction highlights the need for specialized facilities at the base. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is likely a larger entity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable projects for hydrant fuel systems at similar military installations. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, which can be favorable for the government if managed well. However, the total value of $15.7 million for a 692-day project requires scrutiny to ensure it aligns with industry standards for industrial building construction of this nature.

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 8 bidders participating, the level of competition appears robust, which typically leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. This broad competition suggests that the market for such specialized construction services is likely healthy.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with multiple bidders generally results in taxpayer savings by driving down prices and encouraging efficiency from the winning contractor.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force and personnel at Hill Air Force Base, who will gain improved fueling infrastructure. The contract delivers essential industrial building construction services, specifically for a hydrant fuel system. The geographic impact is localized to Hill Air Force Base in Utah, supporting its operational capabilities. The project likely involves a construction workforce, potentially including skilled trades and project management personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Ensuring the long-term durability and maintenance efficiency of the hydrant fuel system post-construction.
Adequate oversight is crucial to confirm adherence to specifications and quality standards throughout the project lifecycle.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type transfers significant cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition with 8 bidders suggests a competitive market and potential for value.
The project addresses a critical infrastructure need for base operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, a segment of the broader construction industry focused on specialized facilities. The market for military infrastructure projects is often characterized by government contracts, requiring adherence to strict specifications and security protocols. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar military construction projects can vary widely based on location, scope, and specific technological requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall offer from the competitive field, rather than prioritizing small business participation directly through a set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may still exist, depending on the prime contractor's procurement practices and the nature of the work required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project oversight details may not be publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Infrastructure Projects
Fueling Systems Construction
Industrial Facility Development
Department of Defense Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of project delays due to complex coordination with existing base infrastructure.
Ensuring compliance with stringent environmental and safety regulations for fuel systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.7 million to ROCKFORD CORPORATION. HYDANT FUEL SYSTEM, HILL AFB, UT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKFORD CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-05-22. End: 2011-04-14.

What is the track record of Rockford Corporation in completing similar large-scale industrial construction projects for the federal government?

Assessing Rockford Corporation's track record requires a review of their past federal contract performance. This would involve examining data on project completion times, adherence to budget (especially for firm-fixed-price contracts), quality of work, and any past performance issues or disputes. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be crucial. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project delivery would indicate a lower risk for this current contract. Conversely, a pattern of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues would raise concerns about their capability to execute this $15.7 million hydrant fuel system project effectively.

How does the awarded amount of $15.7 million compare to the estimated cost or benchmark for similar hydrant fuel system construction projects?

Determining the value-for-money requires comparing the $15.7 million award to industry benchmarks or cost estimates for similar hydrant fuel system construction projects. This comparison should account for factors such as project scale, complexity, location (e.g., remote base vs. accessible site), and specific technical requirements. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns or specific benchmark data for military hydrant fuel systems, a precise comparison is difficult. However, the fact that 8 bids were received under full and open competition suggests that the market price was likely competitive. Further analysis would involve consulting construction cost databases or seeking expert opinions on typical costs for such specialized infrastructure.

What are the primary risks associated with the construction of a hydrant fuel system, and how are they mitigated by this contract?

Key risks in constructing a hydrant fuel system include potential environmental hazards (e.g., soil contamination), complex underground utility coordination, specialized material sourcing, and adherence to stringent safety and operational standards for fuel handling. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) nature of this contract mitigates financial risk for the government by capping the total cost at $15.7 million. The contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen issues. However, the government retains risk related to ensuring the contractor's technical competence, quality of work, and compliance with all regulations. Robust project oversight, clear specifications, and contractor pre-qualification are essential to manage these remaining risks.

What is the expected impact of this hydrant fuel system on the operational effectiveness of Hill Air Force Base?

A modern and reliable hydrant fuel system is critical for the operational effectiveness of an air base like Hill AFB. It allows for rapid and efficient refueling of aircraft directly on the flight line, reducing turnaround times and increasing sortie generation capabilities. This infrastructure supports the base's primary mission, whether it involves fighter jets, transport aircraft, or other aviation assets. An upgraded system can also enhance safety by reducing the risks associated with mobile fuel trucks and improve environmental compliance by minimizing spills. The investment signifies a commitment to maintaining and enhancing the base's aviation support infrastructure.

How has federal spending on industrial building construction, particularly for defense installations, trended in recent years?

Federal spending on industrial building construction, especially within the defense sector, tends to fluctuate based on geopolitical conditions, modernization priorities, and budget allocations. Following periods of significant military engagement, there is often an increased focus on upgrading and maintaining existing infrastructure, including specialized facilities like fuel systems. Defense spending often prioritizes projects that enhance operational readiness and technological superiority. Trends can also be influenced by specific military branch needs and congressional appropriations. Analyzing historical spending data for the Department of the Air Force and similar agencies would provide a clearer picture of recent trends and investment patterns in this specific construction sub-sector.

What is the significance of the 692-day duration for this construction project?

A duration of 692 days (approximately 23 months) for a $15.7 million industrial building construction project indicates a substantial undertaking. This timeframe suggests that the project involves significant complexity, potentially including extensive site preparation, foundation work, installation of specialized piping and storage systems, integration with existing base infrastructure, and rigorous testing and commissioning phases. Such a duration is not unusual for large-scale construction, especially at secure government facilities where access, planning, and regulatory approvals can add time. It implies a need for careful project management and scheduling to ensure timely completion.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W9123809R0015

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UEI: 079253902)

Address: 6700 ARCTIC SPUR RD, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,721,960

Exercised Options: $15,721,960

Current Obligation: $15,721,960

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline