DoD's $74M UEPH construction contract awarded to Absher Construction Co. shows fair value with 4 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $74,224,814 ($74.2M)

Contractor: Absher Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-25

End Date: 2014-01-31

Contract Duration: 2,138 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH

Place of Performance

Location: SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96857

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $74.2 million to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH Key points: 1. The contract's final value was within a reasonable range given the scope of construction. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a healthy market for this type of construction service. 3. Risk indicators appear manageable, with no major red flags identified in the contract's execution. 4. Performance context indicates a long-term project, typical for large-scale construction endeavors. 5. This contract falls within the broader Defense sector's infrastructure development spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The final award amount of $74.2 million for the construction of Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing (UEPH) appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale military construction projects. While a direct per-unit cost comparison is difficult without detailed project specifications, the number of bidders (4) suggests a competitive environment that likely contributed to a fair price. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract also provides cost certainty for the government.

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 presence of four bidders suggests a competitive landscape for this type of construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition for this substantial construction project likely resulted in a more competitive bid environment, potentially saving taxpayer dollars compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

Service members will benefit from improved housing facilities. The contract delivered essential infrastructure for military personnel. The geographic impact is concentrated in Hawaii, supporting local military installations. The project likely supported local construction jobs and related industries in Hawaii.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns on long-term construction projects if not meticulously managed.
Delays in construction timelines can impact operational readiness and soldier welfare.
Ensuring quality of construction to meet long-term durability standards requires ongoing oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting market validation of pricing.
Long duration indicates a comprehensive and potentially well-planned project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The Department of Defense is a significant client for construction services, particularly for building and maintaining military infrastructure. Benchmarking this $74 million project against other large federal construction contracts reveals it to be a substantial but not unprecedented investment in military housing.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor engaged small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's firm-fixed-price nature implies a degree of cost control. Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army personnel. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed execution oversight reports are not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud or significant mismanagement.

Related Government Programs

Military Housing Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing (UEPH)
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Risk Flags

Long contract duration increases risk of cost escalation and schedule slippage.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data hinders thorough value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $74.2 million to ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO. CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $74.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-25. End: 2014-01-31.

What was the initial estimated cost versus the final award amount, and what does this variance suggest?

The provided data does not include the initial estimated cost, only the final award amount of $74,224,814.15. Therefore, a direct comparison to assess variance is not possible. However, the fact that the contract was awarded suggests that the bids received were deemed acceptable by the government. For large construction projects, final costs can sometimes exceed initial estimates due to unforeseen site conditions, changes in material costs, or scope adjustments. Without the initial estimate, it's difficult to definitively state what the variance implies about cost management or the bidding process.

How does the final cost per square foot compare to industry benchmarks for similar military housing construction in Hawaii?

The provided data does not include the total square footage of the constructed UEPH, making a per-square-foot cost calculation impossible. To perform this comparison, one would need the total square footage built. Industry benchmarks for military housing can vary significantly based on building type, amenities, and specific location. A thorough analysis would require accessing detailed project plans and comparing the calculated cost per square foot against established construction cost databases for the Hawaii region and for government-funded projects of similar scale and purpose.

What were the specific performance metrics or quality standards outlined in the contract, and how was compliance monitored?

The provided data does not detail the specific performance metrics or quality standards stipulated in the contract, nor does it outline the monitoring mechanisms. Typically, large construction contracts include detailed specifications regarding materials, workmanship, safety protocols, and adherence to building codes (e.g., UFCs - Unified Facilities Criteria). Compliance is usually monitored through regular site inspections by government representatives (e.g., COR - Contracting Officer's Representative), progress reports from the contractor, and potentially third-party quality assurance assessments. The long duration (2138 days) suggests a phased approach to monitoring and quality control.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the contract period, and what was their impact on cost and schedule?

The provided data does not specify the number or nature of contract modifications or change orders. For a contract spanning 2138 days (nearly 6 years), it is common to have modifications for various reasons, such as adjustments to scope, unforeseen conditions, or changes in requirements. Analyzing the impact on cost and schedule would require reviewing the contract's modification history, which is not available in the summary data. Such a review would be crucial to understanding the project's true cost evolution and adherence to the original timeline.

What is the track record of Absher Construction Co. on similar large-scale government construction projects, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Absher Construction Co. has a history of performing large-scale construction projects, including significant work for the Department of Defense. While specific details on past performance metrics for this particular contract are not provided, their engagement on a $74 million UEPH project indicates a level of capability and experience deemed sufficient by the Army. A deeper dive into their contract history, including past performance evaluations and any disputes or claims filed, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise in executing similar federal contracts.

How does the $34.7 million in 'br' (breakdown?) relate to the total contract value and the services provided?

The data point 'br': 34717 likely represents a breakdown value, possibly related to a specific phase, component, or cost category within the larger contract. Without further context or a defined key for 'br', its exact meaning is unclear. If it represents a specific cost element or a portion of the total contract value, it would need to be analyzed in conjunction with the detailed contract schedule of values. Assuming it's a cost component, its relation to the $74.2 million total award would indicate its relative significance within the overall project budget.

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: W9128A08R0005

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1001 SHAW RD, PUYALLUP, WA, 98372

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $74,224,814

Exercised Options: $74,224,814

Current Obligation: $74,224,814

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline