DoD's $146M Schofield Barracks construction contract awarded to DCK-ECC Pacific LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $146,407,937 ($146.4M)

Contractor: Dck-Ecc Pacific LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-03-28

End Date: 2015-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,464 days

Daily Burn Rate: $100.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FY09 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT SOUTH RANGE PROJECTS, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, OAHU, HAWAII

Place of Performance

Location: SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96857

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $146.4 million to DCK-ECC PACIFIC LLC for work described as: FY09 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT SOUTH RANGE PROJECTS, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, OAHU, HAWAII Key points: 1. Contract value of $146.4 million for design and construction services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of approximately 4 years, indicating a significant project timeline. 4. Firm Fixed Price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability. 5. Project located in Hawaii, potentially impacting local construction labor and material markets. 6. No small business set-aside noted, raising questions about small business participation. 7. The contract falls under Industrial Building Construction, a specialized sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $146.4 million for design and construction at Schofield Barracks appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale military construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to manage cost overruns, but the final cost-effectiveness will depend on the quality of work delivered and adherence to the original scope. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar projects in Hawaii, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

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. The presence of 16 bids suggests a robust level of competition for this significant construction project. A high number of bidders generally benefits price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government, as contractors vie to win the award. This approach is typically favored for large contracts to ensure the best value is obtained.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. It increases the likelihood that the government secured the construction services at a competitive market rate.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and its personnel stationed at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii, who will gain improved facilities. The contract delivers design and construction services for projects within the South Range area of the barracks. The geographic impact is concentrated in Hawaii, specifically on Oahu, potentially stimulating the local economy through job creation and material sourcing. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, architects, and project managers in the Hawaii region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or scope creep occurs, despite the fixed-price nature.
Dependence on a single contractor (DCK-ECC Pacific LLC) for the entire project duration, concentrating risk.
Possible delays in project completion impacting military readiness or operational needs.
Environmental considerations during construction in Hawaii's sensitive ecosystem.
Ensuring compliance with all federal building codes and military specifications.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive market for these services.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Significant investment in military infrastructure at a key installation.
Long-term project duration allows for structured planning and execution.
Contractor has a defined scope of work for a substantial project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, a segment of the broader construction industry focused on specialized facilities for industrial purposes. The U.S. Department of Defense is a major client for such construction, requiring facilities that meet stringent security, operational, and environmental standards. The market for large-scale military construction is often characterized by a mix of large, established firms and specialized subcontractors. Spending benchmarks for similar military base construction projects can vary widely based on location, scope, and specific requirements, but projects in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are common for major installations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a large business or a joint venture dominated by large businesses. While large prime contracts can sometimes lead to subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, the absence of a specific set-aside means there was no mandated requirement for small business participation at the prime contract level. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the actual impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their administrative team within the relevant Army contracting command. Quality assurance personnel would likely be assigned to monitor construction progress and adherence to specifications. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle. The firm fixed-price nature places a significant portion of the cost risk on the contractor, which can incentivize efficient project management.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Design-Build Contracts
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns despite fixed-price
Contractor performance risk over long duration
Limited small business participation noted
Environmental impact during construction
Scope creep risk in multi-year project

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $146.4 million to DCK-ECC PACIFIC LLC. FY09 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT SOUTH RANGE PROJECTS, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, OAHU, HAWAII

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DCK-ECC PACIFIC LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $146.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-03-28. End: 2015-03-31.

What is the track record of DCK-ECC Pacific LLC in executing large-scale federal construction projects, particularly for the Department of Defense?

Assessing the track record of DCK-ECC Pacific LLC requires a review of their past performance on similar federal contracts. This would involve examining contract databases for previous awards, project scopes, values, and any reported performance issues or successes. Specifically, looking for experience with firm fixed-price, design-build projects of similar magnitude ($146M+) and within the construction of industrial or military facilities would be crucial. Information on their financial stability, safety records, and any past litigation or disputes related to federal contracts would also provide valuable insights into their capability to successfully execute the Schofield Barracks project.

How does the awarded price of $146.4 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar industrial building construction projects in Hawaii?

To benchmark the $146.4 million contract price, one would need to compare it against the cost per square foot or cost per unit of similar industrial building construction projects in Hawaii. This comparison should account for factors such as project complexity, specific building types (e.g., warehouses, maintenance facilities), material costs prevalent in Hawaii, labor rates, and any unique site preparation requirements. Accessing construction cost databases, consulting with industry cost estimators, or reviewing publicly available data on comparable Department of Defense or other federal agency construction projects in the region would be necessary. Without such specific comparative data, it is difficult to definitively state whether the price represents excellent, fair, or questionable value.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a multi-year construction project of this scale?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a multi-year construction project like the Schofield Barracks design and construct, is the potential for contractor default or significant cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise. While FFP shifts cost risk to the contractor, if the contractor underestimated costs, encounters unexpected site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), or faces significant material price escalations beyond their control, they may struggle to complete the project within the fixed price. This could lead to contractor bankruptcy, project delays, or demands for contract modifications, potentially negating the intended cost certainty for the government. Robust contract administration and contingency planning are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What are the implications of awarding this contract through 'full and open competition' with 16 bidders on price discovery and overall value for taxpayers?

Awarding this $146.4 million construction contract through 'full and open competition' with 16 bidders is generally a positive indicator for taxpayers. A large number of bidders suggests a healthy, competitive market for these types of services. This competitive pressure typically drives down prices as contractors vie to win the award, leading to better price discovery for the government. It increases the likelihood that the contract was awarded at a fair and reasonable price reflecting market conditions. Furthermore, it provides assurance that the government explored a wide range of potential contractors, maximizing the opportunity to find a capable firm offering the best overall value, considering both price and technical approach.

How does the duration of the contract (approx. 1464 days or 4 years) influence the assessment of project risk and management?

A contract duration of approximately four years for a design and construction project of this magnitude introduces specific risks and management considerations. Longer durations increase the exposure to potential economic fluctuations, such as inflation in material and labor costs, which could strain a firm fixed-price agreement if not adequately accounted for. There's also a heightened risk of scope creep or changes in requirements over such an extended period. Effective management requires rigorous oversight, proactive communication, and potentially mechanisms to adjust for significant, unforeseen economic shifts. Conversely, a longer duration allows for more thorough planning, phased construction, and potentially higher quality outcomes if managed well, but also demands sustained oversight.

What is the significance of the 'Industrial Building Construction' (nd: 236210) classification for this contract and its potential impact on specialized contractor selection?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236210, 'Industrial Building Construction,' signifies that the contract is for the erection of new industrial buildings and major renovations. This classification suggests the project likely involves specialized construction techniques, materials, and adherence to specific codes related to industrial facilities, which could include manufacturing plants, warehouses, or large-scale storage structures. This specialization means that contractors bidding on and performing this work need specific expertise and experience in industrial construction, potentially limiting the pool of eligible bidders compared to general building construction. It implies a need for robust project management capable of handling complex industrial requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W9128A10R0003

Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 707 RICHARDS ST STE 410, HONOLULU, HI, 96813

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $146,407,937

Exercised Options: $146,407,937

Current Obligation: $146,407,937

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline