Carson & Associates Inc. awarded $21.4M contract for commercial building construction by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,431,520 ($21.4M)

Contractor: Carson & Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-21

End Date: 2015-01-20

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE BID

Place of Performance

Location: WHITE HALL, JEFFERSON County, ARKANSAS, 71602

State: Arkansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.4 million to CARSON & ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: BASE BID Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1825 days (5 years) indicates a long-term need for construction services. 3. The base bid of $21.4M for commercial building construction requires benchmarking against similar projects. 4. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but could limit flexibility for unforeseen issues. 5. The award to Carson & Associates Inc. warrants examination of their past performance and capacity. 6. Geographic location in Arkansas (AR) may influence local economic impact and workforce considerations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The base bid of $21.4 million for commercial and institutional building construction over five years appears to be a significant investment. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's challenging to benchmark the value definitively. However, the duration suggests a substantial project. Further analysis would require comparing the per-square-foot cost or cost per unit of service against similar government construction contracts awarded in the same region and timeframe to assess if the pricing is competitive and represents good value for money.

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 typically means that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 6 bids indicates a moderate level of competition for this construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors. The fact that it was open competition is a positive sign for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The open competition suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from a more competitive bidding process, potentially leading to a lower overall cost for the construction services compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army, which will receive the constructed facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, fulfilling infrastructure needs. The geographic impact is concentrated in Arkansas (AR), potentially benefiting the local economy through job creation and material sourcing. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, tradespeople, and related support staff in the Arkansas region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for material price fluctuations or unforeseen site conditions.
The long duration of the contract could lead to contractor performance degradation or challenges in adapting to evolving construction standards.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant construction project may pose risks if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
The firm fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term commitment to fulfilling a specific construction need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as offices, schools, hospitals, and government facilities. The market size for federal construction is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure and build new facilities. This specific contract represents a portion of the Department of the Army's capital investment in its physical infrastructure, fitting within the typical spending patterns for facility development and maintenance.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false) and the contractor is not identified as a small business (sb: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further investigation would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were mandated or encouraged, and what their potential impact on the small business ecosystem in Arkansas might be.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Facility Maintenance and Repair
Government Building Projects
Department of Defense Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to long contract duration and fixed-price nature.
Contractor performance risk over a five-year period.
Need to verify if 'exclusion of sources' criteria unduly limited competition.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting information.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.4 million to CARSON & ASSOCIATES INC. BASE BID

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CARSON & ASSOCIATES 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 $21.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-21. End: 2015-01-20.

What is the track record of Carson & Associates Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in construction?

A review of Carson & Associates Inc.'s federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining past performance evaluations, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar-sized and scoped construction projects. Understanding their past performance, especially with the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, is crucial for evaluating their reliability and capability to successfully execute this $21.4 million contract. Data from systems like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be invaluable here.

How does the $21.4 million base bid compare to similar commercial building construction contracts awarded by the Army or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $21.4 million base bid requires comparing it against similar commercial and institutional building construction contracts. Key metrics for comparison would include cost per square foot, cost per unit of capacity (e.g., per bed for a dormitory, per office space), and the overall contract value relative to project complexity and duration. Analyzing contracts awarded within the last 1-3 years in similar geographic regions (Arkansas and surrounding states) by agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers or other branches of the DoD would provide a relevant context. This comparison helps determine if the bid represents a fair market price and good value for the taxpayer.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with a five-year firm fixed-price construction contract of this magnitude?

Key risk indicators for a five-year firm fixed-price construction contract of $21.4 million include potential cost escalation for materials and labor, especially over such a long period, which is borne by the contractor but could lead to quality compromises if margins are squeezed. Scope creep, where the project requirements expand beyond the initial agreement, is another risk, potentially leading to disputes or change orders. Contractor performance risk, including delays, quality issues, or financial instability, is also significant. Furthermore, unforeseen site conditions or regulatory changes could impact project timelines and costs, posing risks to successful completion.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring competitive pricing for construction projects?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method is generally effective in ensuring competitive pricing, as it aims to solicit bids from all responsible sources. The inclusion of 6 bidders in this case suggests a reasonable level of competition. However, the 'after exclusion of sources' part implies that certain pre-qualification criteria might have been applied, potentially limiting the pool slightly. The effectiveness hinges on whether the exclusion criteria were justified and did not unduly restrict competition. A robust competition typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award.

What is the historical spending pattern for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army in Arkansas?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army in Arkansas would provide context for this $21.4 million contract. This involves reviewing past contract awards within the state for similar construction types over several fiscal years. Understanding the volume and value of previous contracts can reveal trends in Army's investment in infrastructure in the region, identify key contractors that frequently win these awards, and establish a baseline for current spending. Significant deviations from historical patterns might warrant further investigation into the necessity or scale of the current project.

What are the potential implications of this contract on the local small business construction ecosystem in Arkansas?

Given that this contract was not a small business set-aside and the awardee is not identified as a small business, the direct impact on the small business construction ecosystem might be limited unless significant subcontracting opportunities are created. The primary benefit to local small businesses would stem from potential subcontracting roles in areas like specialized trades, material supply, or support services. The extent of this impact depends on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy and adherence to any small business subcontracting goals. Without such provisions, the contract primarily benefits the larger prime contractor and its direct workforce.

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: W9127S10R6004

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1310 W DAISY BATES DR, LITTLE ROCK, AR, 02

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,431,520

Exercised Options: $21,431,520

Current Obligation: $21,431,520

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline