Turner Construction awarded $35.6M contract for Redstone Arsenal aircraft facility, utilizing full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,600,388 ($35.6M)

Contractor: Turner Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-11-10

End Date: 2022-12-25

Contract Duration: 775 days

Daily Burn Rate: $45.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT EQUIPMENT BUILDING, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA COMPETITION

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35808

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.6 million to TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT EQUIPMENT BUILDING, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA COMPETITION Key points: 1. The contract value of $35.6 million represents a significant investment in critical infrastructure for aviation support. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor, Turner Construction. 4. The project duration of 775 days indicates a substantial construction timeline. 5. The location in Alabama positions the facility within a region with existing defense infrastructure. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract award of $35.6 million for the aircraft and flight equipment building at Redstone Arsenal appears reasonable given the scope of constructing a significant facility. Benchmarking against similar large-scale government construction projects would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure implies that the contractor has committed to a set price, which is generally favorable for the government when the scope is well-defined.

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 a bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. This competitive environment is generally conducive to achieving fair market prices and encouraging contractors to offer their best value proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through a competitive bidding process, ensuring that the government receives the best possible value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and its aviation units stationed at Redstone Arsenal, who will gain a new, modern facility. The contract will deliver a dedicated building for aircraft and flight equipment, enhancing operational readiness and maintenance capabilities. The geographic impact is concentrated at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, supporting regional defense infrastructure. The project will likely create numerous jobs in the construction sector within Alabama, benefiting local and regional workforces.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards and specifications.

Positive Signals

Turner Construction's experience in large-scale projects suggests a strong capacity to deliver.
Firm-fixed-price contract aligns incentives for efficient project completion.
Full and open competition indicates a thorough vetting of potential contractors.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for large-scale government facilities is substantial, with significant annual spending allocated to infrastructure development and modernization. This project aligns with the Department of Defense's ongoing efforts to upgrade and maintain its operational bases and support facilities across the country.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions. While the prime contractor, Turner Construction, is a large entity, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting will depend on Turner Construction's procurement practices and the availability of qualified small business vendors for specialized construction services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will be managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and project managers responsible for ensuring adherence to contract terms, specifications, and timelines. Transparency is expected through contract award databases and reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Defense Infrastructure Modernization
Redstone Arsenal Facilities
Aviation Support Facilities
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of project delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.6 million to TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. AIRCRAFT AND FLIGHT EQUIPMENT BUILDING, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA COMPETITION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-11-10. End: 2022-12-25.

What is Turner Construction Company's track record with similar large-scale government construction projects?

Turner Construction Company has a substantial track record of undertaking large-scale construction projects, including significant work for government and defense clients. They have experience with complex facilities, often involving advanced technological requirements and stringent security protocols. A review of their past performance on similar military construction or aviation-related facilities would reveal their ability to manage budgets, adhere to schedules, and meet quality standards. Their portfolio often includes projects of comparable or greater value, suggesting a capacity to handle the scope and complexity of the Redstone Arsenal contract. Specific details on past performance metrics, such as on-time completion rates and final costs versus initial estimates, would further illuminate their reliability.

How does the $35.6 million award compare to the estimated cost or budget for this type of facility?

Without access to the government's initial cost estimates or detailed project specifications, a direct comparison of the $35.6 million award to a precise budget is challenging. However, the award amount represents a significant investment, typical for the construction of specialized military facilities like an aircraft and flight equipment building. Factors influencing the cost include the size of the building, the complexity of its systems (e.g., HVAC, electrical, specialized hangar equipment), site preparation requirements, and adherence to specific military construction standards. Benchmarking against recent, similar-sized military aviation facility constructions could provide context, but variations in location, materials, and specific functional requirements mean direct comparisons should be made cautiously. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed to secure a definitive cost upfront.

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

The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract, while generally favorable to the government, lie in potential scope creep, unforeseen site conditions, and contractor performance issues. If the project scope expands beyond the initial definition, change orders could increase the total cost, although the fixed price provides a baseline. Unforeseen geological or environmental conditions at Redstone Arsenal could necessitate additional work and potentially lead to claims or disputes, even under a fixed-price agreement. Contractor performance risks include potential delays, quality defects, or financial instability, which could impact project completion. The government's oversight and the contractor's own risk management strategies are crucial in mitigating these potential issues.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts?

Full and open competition is widely considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it fosters a competitive environment where contractors are incentivized to offer their lowest possible price and best technical solution to win the contract. This process typically leads to more competitive pricing than sole-source or limited competition scenarios. The presence of multiple bidders, as seen with the 3 bidders in this case, increases the likelihood that the government will receive a fair market price. Robust evaluation criteria beyond just price also ensure that the selected contractor offers the best overall value, considering factors like technical approach, past performance, and management capability.

What are the historical spending patterns for aircraft and flight equipment facilities at Redstone Arsenal or similar installations?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar facilities at Redstone Arsenal or comparable military installations would provide valuable context for the $35.6 million award. Such analysis would involve examining past contracts for the construction, renovation, or expansion of aviation-related buildings, hangars, maintenance facilities, and flight support infrastructure. Trends in contract values, award types (fixed-price vs. cost-reimbursement), competition levels, and project durations would reveal whether this award is consistent with historical norms or represents an outlier. Understanding these patterns can help identify potential cost efficiencies, common challenges, or shifts in investment priorities over time. Data from agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers or the Defense Contract Audit Agency could offer insights into these historical expenditures.

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: W9127820R0037

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Vinci

Address: 375 HUDSON ST FL 6, NEW YORK, NY, 10014

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,600,388

Exercised Options: $35,600,388

Current Obligation: $35,600,388

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 42

Total Subaward Amount: $36,645,438

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline