Fort Bliss dental clinic construction contract awarded to Banes General Contractors for over $11.7 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,703,881 ($11.7M)

Contractor: Banes General Contractors Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-26

End Date: 2009-10-22

Contract Duration: 757 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DENTAL CLINIC - FORT BLISS

Place of Performance

Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79906

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.7 million to BANES GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC for work described as: DENTAL CLINIC - FORT BLISS Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a commercial building construction project of this size and scope. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. Project duration of approximately 757 days indicates a significant construction timeline. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 5. Location in Texas may influence labor and material costs compared to other regions. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a defense-related infrastructure need.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $11.7 million for the construction of a dental clinic at Fort Bliss appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale. Benchmarking against similar government construction projects for medical facilities or large commercial buildings would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to private sector construction of similar facilities, a definitive assessment of exceptional value is difficult.

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. This suggests a robust bidding process where multiple contractors had the opportunity to compete for the work. The presence of 5 bids, as indicated by the 'no' field, further supports the notion of a competitive environment. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and ensuring that the government receives the best possible value for its investment. It also promotes a level playing field for contractors.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families at Fort Bliss will benefit from improved dental care facilities. The construction project provides services related to building infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Bliss, Texas. The project likely created temporary employment opportunities for construction workers in the region.

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 contingencies.
Risk of construction delays impacting the operational readiness of the dental clinic.
Quality control issues during construction could lead to long-term maintenance problems.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition likely resulted in a competitive bid and fair pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Award to a single contractor streamlines project management and accountability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. Government spending on infrastructure, particularly for military bases, represents a substantial portion of this sector's activity. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar government-funded medical or administrative facilities constructed around the same period. The market size for government construction is vast, encompassing projects for various agencies and branches of the military.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically related to small business set-asides for this particular award. The absence of a small business set-aside means that large businesses were eligible to compete and potentially win the contract, which could influence subcontracting opportunities for small businesses if the prime contractor chooses to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, although detailed project-specific oversight mechanisms are internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Healthcare Facility Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Fort Bliss Base Operations Support

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to fixed-price contract in a complex construction environment.
Risk of construction delays impacting facility readiness.
Quality control during construction needs diligent oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.7 million to BANES GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC. DENTAL CLINIC - FORT BLISS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BANES GENERAL CONTRACTORS 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 $11.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-26. End: 2009-10-22.

What was the track record of Banes General Contractors Inc. with federal contracts prior to this award?

Analyzing the track record of Banes General Contractors Inc. prior to the award of this $11.7 million contract for the Fort Bliss dental clinic would involve reviewing their past federal contract history. This includes examining the number of previous awards, their values, the agencies they contracted with, and their performance ratings. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project completions would indicate a lower risk profile. Conversely, a history of contract disputes, performance issues, or significant cost overruns on prior federal projects might raise concerns about their capability to execute this dental clinic construction effectively. Without access to a detailed contract performance database, a comprehensive assessment of their track record is limited to the information available in public contract databases.

How does the cost per square foot of this dental clinic construction compare to similar government facilities?

To compare the cost per square foot of this $11.7 million dental clinic construction project at Fort Bliss, we would need the total square footage of the facility. Assuming a typical size for such a clinic, we could then calculate the cost per square foot and benchmark it against similar government-funded medical or institutional buildings. Factors influencing this comparison include the year of construction, geographic location (which affects labor and material costs), and the specific requirements for medical facilities (e.g., specialized equipment, HVAC, plumbing). If the cost per square foot is significantly higher than comparable projects, it could indicate potential issues with pricing or scope creep. Conversely, a lower cost per square foot might suggest efficient project management or a favorable bid.

What were the primary risk indicators identified during the procurement process for this contract?

Primary risk indicators for a construction contract of this magnitude typically revolve around contractor performance, project complexity, and potential for cost overruns or delays. Given the firm fixed-price nature, a key risk is the contractor's ability to manage costs effectively and absorb unforeseen expenses. The duration of the project (757 days) suggests a complex undertaking, increasing the risk of schedule slippage due to weather, supply chain issues, or labor availability. The specific nature of constructing a dental clinic might also introduce risks related to specialized building codes, equipment installation, and infection control during construction. The number of bids received (5) suggests a moderate level of competition, which could mitigate some risks if bidders were highly qualified.

What is the historical spending pattern for dental clinic construction or similar medical facilities at Fort Bliss or within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for dental clinic construction or similar medical facilities at Fort Bliss and within the Department of the Army would provide context for the $11.7 million award. This involves examining past contracts for similar projects, noting their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Trends in spending, average project costs, and the frequency of such procurements can reveal whether this contract is an outlier or part of a consistent investment strategy. For instance, if the Army has recently undertaken a modernization program for its medical facilities, spending on projects like this dental clinic might be expected. Conversely, a sudden increase in spending could warrant further investigation into the drivers behind it.

How effective were the oversight mechanisms in ensuring the successful completion of this project within budget and schedule?

The effectiveness of oversight mechanisms for this contract would be assessed by examining project documentation, progress reports, and final acceptance records. Key indicators include whether the project was completed on time and within the $11.7 million fixed price. Effective oversight involves regular site inspections, quality assurance checks, and proactive management of any issues that arise. The contracting officer's representative (COR) plays a crucial role in monitoring contractor performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Without access to internal agency reports or post-project reviews, a definitive judgment on oversight effectiveness is challenging, but the contract's completion status (implied by the end date) and any change orders or claims would offer clues.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: W9126G07R0018

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6001 DONIPHAN DR, EL PASO, TX, 16

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,703,881

Exercised Options: $11,703,881

Current Obligation: $11,703,881

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline