DoD's $16.7M contract for Isabella Permanent Operations Buildings awarded to Anderson Burton Construction, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,700,201 ($16.7M)

Contractor: Anderson Burton Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-04-24

End Date: 2024-09-14

Contract Duration: 509 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ISABELLA PERMANENT OPERATIONS BUILDINGS

Place of Performance

Location: LAKE ISABELLA, KERN County, CALIFORNIA, 93240

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.7 million to ANDERSON BURTON CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: ISABELLA PERMANENT OPERATIONS BUILDINGS Key points: 1. The contract value of $16.7 million appears to be within a reasonable range for a construction project of this nature, though specific benchmarks are needed for definitive assessment. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust bidding process that should have yielded competitive pricing. 3. The definitive contract type indicates a commitment to a specific scope of work and duration. 4. The project is located in California, a region with significant construction activity and associated costs. 5. The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively. 6. The contractor, Anderson Burton Construction, Inc., has a track record that warrants review to assess past performance on similar projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $16.7 million for the Isabella Permanent Operations Buildings requires comparison to similar construction projects within the Department of Defense and the broader commercial/institutional building sector. Without specific cost breakdowns or detailed project scopes, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if the contractor's bid was competitive and realistic. Further analysis would involve comparing per-square-foot costs or costs per unit of functionality against industry standards and similar government projects.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which indicates that while the competition was broad, certain sources were intentionally excluded. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests that multiple responsible sources were solicited. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The exclusion of specific sources, however, warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and potential impact on the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation among contractors. This approach aims to ensure that the most capable and cost-effective solutions are selected.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will gain access to new or improved operational facilities. The services delivered include the construction of permanent buildings, essential for supporting military operations and infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to California, where the Isabella Permanent Operations Buildings will be constructed. This project will likely have implications for the local construction workforce, creating employment opportunities for skilled laborers and tradespeople in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exclusion of sources in a 'full and open' competition needs clarification to ensure no viable contractors were unfairly prevented from bidding.
The specific nature of the 'permanent operations buildings' and their intended use could present unique operational or security risks that need to be managed.
The duration of the contract (509 days) is substantial, increasing the potential for unforeseen challenges or changes in requirements.

Positive Signals

The use of 'full and open competition' is a positive signal, indicating an effort to maximize bidder participation and achieve competitive pricing.
The 'firm fixed-price' contract type effectively transfers cost-related risks from the government to the contractor.
The project falls under the broad category of Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a sector where Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. likely has relevant experience.

Sector Analysis

The construction of permanent operational buildings for the Department of Defense falls within the broader Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. This sector is characterized by significant project values, complex logistical requirements, and adherence to stringent building codes and safety standards. Government construction contracts, particularly those for defense, often involve specialized requirements related to security, durability, and operational readiness. Benchmarking this $16.7 million contract would involve comparing it to similar-sized military or government facility construction projects, considering factors like square footage, complexity of systems, and geographic location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. This suggests that the primary focus was on full and open competition to secure the best value. Consequently, there may be limited direct subcontracting opportunities specifically mandated for small businesses through this award. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem will depend on whether the prime contractor, Anderson Burton Construction, Inc., voluntarily engages small businesses in its subcontracting plans or if the project's scale naturally creates opportunities for smaller firms in the supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and relevant project managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified scope within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract award databases and reporting mechanisms. The Inspector General's office may conduct audits or investigations if specific concerns regarding waste, fraud, or abuse arise during the contract's performance or after its completion.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Projects
Military Base Infrastructure Development
Federal Building Construction Contracts
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns despite fixed-price contract if scope is not well-defined.
Risk associated with contractor's past performance and financial stability.
Unforeseen site conditions or material availability issues impacting schedule.
Adequacy of competition due to exclusion of specific sources.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.7 million to ANDERSON BURTON CONSTRUCTION, INC.. ISABELLA PERMANENT OPERATIONS BUILDINGS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ANDERSON BURTON CONSTRUCTION, 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 $16.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-04-24. End: 2024-09-14.

What is the track record of Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. on similar government contracts, particularly those involving large-scale facility construction?

A thorough review of Anderson Burton Construction, Inc.'s past performance is crucial. This would involve examining their history with federal agencies, specifically the Department of Defense and the Army, for contracts of similar size and scope. Key metrics to assess include on-time and on-budget completion rates, quality of work, any history of disputes or contract modifications, and client satisfaction ratings. Understanding their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and their ability to manage complex construction projects will provide insight into their capability to successfully execute the Isabella Permanent Operations Buildings contract. Data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and contractor performance assessment reports (CPARS) would be essential for this analysis.

How does the $16.7 million contract value compare to similar construction projects for operational facilities within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $16.7 million contract value requires comparing it against similar projects in terms of size (square footage), complexity, location, and intended use. For instance, are there other recent awards for operational buildings on military bases of comparable scale? Analyzing cost per square foot, or cost per functional unit (e.g., per office, per barracks space), against industry averages and government construction cost databases would provide a clearer picture of value for money. Factors such as prevailing labor rates in California, material costs, and specific security or environmental requirements unique to military installations will influence this comparison. A significant deviation from established benchmarks, either higher or lower, would warrant further investigation into the underlying cost drivers.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor may incur costs exceeding their bid, potentially leading to quality compromises, delays, or contractor default if they are unable to absorb the losses. For the government, the risk is paying a potentially inflated price if the competition was not robust or if the contractor's bid was overly conservative. Mitigation strategies include thorough pre-award evaluation of the contractor's financial stability and technical capability, clear and detailed scope of work to minimize change orders, and robust contract administration to monitor progress and quality. The 'full and open competition' aspect is a key mitigation factor, as it should have driven a competitive price. However, the exclusion of sources needs to be understood to ensure the competition was truly adequate.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar operational building construction projects by the Department of the Army in California?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar projects by the Department of the Army in California would involve reviewing past contract awards for construction of operational facilities over the last 5-10 years. This would help establish a baseline for typical project costs, contract types, and durations. It would also reveal trends in contractor selection and performance. Understanding this historical context allows for a more informed assessment of the current $16.7 million contract's reasonableness. For example, if similar projects in the past have consistently cost more or less, or if they have experienced significant cost overruns, it provides valuable context for evaluating the Isabella Permanent Operations Buildings contract's potential risks and value.

What specific factors led to the exclusion of certain sources in this 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific potential bidders were deliberately excluded. The reasons for such exclusions typically relate to factors like a lack of required qualifications, past performance issues, inability to meet specific security clearances, or failure to comply with pre-qualification requirements. Understanding the exact criteria used for exclusion is vital. If the exclusions were based on legitimate, well-documented reasons, then the competition can still be considered robust. However, if the exclusions were arbitrary or lacked clear justification, it could raise concerns about the fairness of the competition and potentially limit the government's ability to secure the best possible price and contractor.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9123823R0003

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 121 NEVADA ST, ARROYO GRANDE, CA, 93420

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,700,201

Exercised Options: $16,700,201

Current Obligation: $16,700,201

Actual Outlays: $473,936

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline