DoD's $11.3M construction contract awarded to ACC Construction Co. for building projects

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,326,073 ($11.3M)

Contractor: ACC Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-03-08

End Date: 2007-12-21

Contract Duration: 1,018 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, RAPIDES County, LOUISIANA, 71301

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.3 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through comparison with similar projects and market rates. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include contract type and duration, requiring careful performance monitoring. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Army's infrastructure development needs. 5. Sector positioning is in commercial and institutional building construction, a vital area for military readiness.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $11.3 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears within a reasonable range for projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor assumed most of the cost risk, which can be beneficial for the government if well-managed. However, without specific details on the scope of work and the final deliverables, a definitive assessment of value is challenging.

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 number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which is expected to lead to more favorable pricing for the government. The open competition suggests a healthy market for these construction services.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for lower prices and better quality services due to the competitive bidding process inherent in full and open solicitations.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, receiving necessary infrastructure improvements. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, enhancing military facilities. The geographic impact is localized to Louisiana, where the construction projects were presumably undertaken. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the firm fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all project complexities.
Ensuring adherence to construction quality standards and timelines requires diligent oversight.
The duration of the contract (over 3 years) necessitates sustained monitoring to prevent scope creep or performance degradation.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Contract awarded to ACC Construction Co., Inc., a known entity in the construction sector.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure development and facility maintenance. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a broad category encompassing a wide range of structures. Federal spending in this area supports military readiness, government operations, and public services. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost of similar-sized construction projects awarded by various federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless ACC Construction Co., Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed for a comprehensive analysis.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Firm Fixed Price Risk
Potential for Cost Overruns
Quality Control Oversight

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.3 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACC 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 $11.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-03-08. End: 2007-12-21.

What is the track record of ACC Construction Co., Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

ACC Construction Co., Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily within the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance, including contract values, types, and successful completion rates, is crucial. A review of their performance evaluations and any past disputes or contract terminations would provide insight into their reliability and capability. For this specific $11.3 million contract, understanding their experience with similar-sized projects and the specific types of construction involved (commercial and institutional buildings) is important. Their ability to manage firm fixed-price contracts effectively, delivering quality work on time and within budget, is a key indicator of their track record.

How does the awarded amount of $11.3 million compare to the average cost of similar commercial and institutional building construction projects for the Department of the Army?

To assess the value for money, the $11.3 million award needs to be benchmarked against comparable projects. This involves analyzing the average cost per square foot, cost per unit of construction (e.g., per room, per facility type), and overall project complexity for similar Department of the Army construction contracts awarded within the same timeframe and geographic region. If data indicates that this contract's value is significantly higher or lower than the average, it warrants further investigation. Factors such as unique site requirements, specialized materials, or expedited timelines could justify deviations from the average. Without access to a detailed cost breakdown and a comprehensive database of comparable projects, a precise value-for-money assessment is limited.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a construction project of this magnitude and duration?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, while shifting cost risk to the contractor, carries specific risks for large construction projects. For this $11.3 million contract, the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maintain profitability if unforeseen cost increases arise during the project's 1018-day duration. Scope creep, where the government requests additional work not originally defined, can lead to disputes over pricing if not managed carefully through change orders. Contractor default or bankruptcy, though less likely for established firms, remains a risk. Conversely, the government might overpay if the initial price was set too high due to incomplete project definition or overly optimistic contractor bids. Effective oversight is critical to mitigate these risks.

What is the expected effectiveness of the completed construction in meeting the Department of the Army's operational or readiness needs?

The effectiveness of the completed construction hinges on how well the new or renovated facilities meet the specific operational requirements of the Department of the Army. This could range from improved barracks and training facilities to enhanced logistical support buildings or administrative centers. The contract's success will be measured by whether the facilities are fit for purpose, meet all specified standards (e.g., building codes, environmental regulations, security requirements), and contribute to the overall mission readiness of the unit or base. Post-occupancy evaluations and user feedback would be essential to fully assess effectiveness. The firm fixed-price nature implies the government expects a defined outcome for the agreed price.

How has federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction evolved over the past five years, and where does this contract fit within that trend?

Federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction has generally remained robust, driven by the need to maintain and modernize government infrastructure, including military installations. Trends are influenced by factors such as defense budgets, infrastructure initiatives, and economic conditions. This $11.3 million contract represents a single data point within that broader spending landscape. To understand its place, one would need to compare its value and scope against the total annual federal outlays for similar construction categories. If overall federal construction spending has been increasing, this contract aligns with that trend. Conversely, if spending has been contracting, it might represent a significant investment or a deviation from the norm. Analyzing historical spending patterns provides context for the scale and priority of such awards.

What are the potential implications of this contract award on the local construction market in Louisiana?

A contract of $11.3 million for building construction can have a notable impact on the local construction market in Louisiana. It signifies a substantial injection of capital into the regional economy, potentially creating numerous jobs for skilled laborers, tradespeople, project managers, and support staff. It can also stimulate demand for local suppliers of materials, equipment, and subcontractors. For ACC Construction Co., Inc., winning this bid could enhance their reputation and capacity, potentially leading to further opportunities. However, it could also strain local resources if demand outstrips supply, potentially driving up wages and material costs for other projects in the area. The long duration of the contract suggests a sustained economic impact.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 635 NW FRONTAGE RD STE B, AUGUSTA, GA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline