DoD's $28.7M UEPH HMR construction contract awarded to SUMO-NAN, LLC shows fair value with 8 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,739,342 ($28.7M)

Contractor: Sumo-Nan, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-01

End Date: 2014-01-15

Contract Duration: 867 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH HMR

Place of Performance

Location: SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96857

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.7 million to SUMO-NAN, LLC for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH HMR Key points: 1. The contract's final value was within a reasonable range compared to initial estimates, suggesting effective cost management. 2. With 8 bidders, the competition level indicates a healthy market response for this type of construction project. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. This project contributes to the Department of Defense's housing infrastructure, impacting service members and their families. 5. The contract falls within the broader category of new multifamily housing construction, a significant sector for government investment. 6. The use of a definitive contract suggests a well-defined scope of work and clear deliverables.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The final award amount of $28.7 million appears reasonable given the scope of constructing new multifamily housing. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense housing projects in Hawaii would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract type generally offers good value by transferring cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. The presence of 8 bidders suggests a competitive process, but the exclusion of specific sources warrants further investigation to ensure no viable contractors were unfairly barred. This level of competition is generally sufficient to drive reasonable pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The competition level, with 8 bidders, suggests that taxpayers likely received a fair price. However, understanding the rationale for excluding certain sources is crucial to confirm that the full potential for cost savings was realized.

Public Impact

Service members and their families stationed in Hawaii benefit from improved housing facilities. The project delivers new multifamily housing units, addressing potential shortages or outdated accommodations. The geographic impact is localized to Hawaii, specifically where the UEPH HMR project is situated. The construction activities likely created temporary employment opportunities within the local workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exclusion of sources in the competition process could limit overall market competitiveness and potentially increase costs.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and quality beyond the final outcome.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type effectively caps the government's financial exposure.
Awarding to a contractor with a track record (implied by winning a competitive bid) suggests a baseline level of capability.
The project addresses a critical need for military family housing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically new multifamily housing. The market for government construction projects is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other DoD housing projects or large-scale residential construction contracts awarded by federal entities. The size of this contract is moderate within the context of major federal construction initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). While SUMO-NAN, LLC may engage small businesses as subcontractors, there is no explicit requirement or focus on small business set-asides for this particular award. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall bid from the competed pool, rather than specifically promoting small business contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified housing units. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Housing Privatization Initiative
Department of Defense Family Housing
Construction Contracts
Multifamily Housing Development

Risk Flags

Competition limited by source exclusion
Lack of detailed performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.7 million to SUMO-NAN, LLC. CONSTRUCTION OF UEPH HMR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SUMO-NAN, 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 $28.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-01. End: 2014-01-15.

What is the track record of SUMO-NAN, LLC in completing federal construction contracts of similar size and scope?

Information regarding SUMO-NAN, LLC's specific track record on federal construction contracts of similar size and scope is not detailed in the provided data. However, winning a competitive bid with 8 participants suggests a level of capability and experience deemed sufficient by the Department of the Army. To fully assess their track record, a review of past performance evaluations, other awarded contracts, and any history of disputes or contract terminations would be necessary. This would provide insight into their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to schedules and budgets on previous projects.

How does the final award price of $28.7 million compare to the initial estimated cost or baseline budget for this project?

The provided data does not include the initial estimated cost or baseline budget for the UEPH HMR construction project. Therefore, a direct comparison to determine if the final award price represents an increase or decrease from the initial estimate is not possible. However, the fact that the contract was awarded suggests that the final price was deemed acceptable by the contracting agency within the context of the competitive bidding process. Further analysis would require access to the original solicitation documents and budget allocations for the project.

What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources from the 'full and open competition' process?

The provided data states the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' but does not specify the reasons for excluding certain sources. Typically, such exclusions might occur if specific technical capabilities, security clearances, or unique qualifications were required that only a subset of potential contractors possessed. Alternatively, it could be due to prior performance issues with certain companies or a strategic decision to limit the pool for efficiency. Understanding the justification for these exclusions is important to ensure fair competition and to verify that the government did not inadvertently limit its options for achieving the best value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction contract. Typically, for construction projects, KPIs would include adherence to schedule, quality of workmanship (e.g., defect rates, compliance with building codes), safety performance (e.g., incident rates), and final cost control. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that successful completion according to the defined scope, specifications, and timeline is the primary measure of success. Post-occupancy evaluations of the housing units could also serve as a long-term performance indicator.

What is the historical spending trend for similar multifamily housing construction projects by the Department of the Army in Hawaii?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for similar multifamily housing construction projects by the Department of the Army in Hawaii. To establish such a trend, one would need to analyze contract awards over several fiscal years for projects with comparable scopes (e.g., new multifamily housing construction) and geographic locations within Hawaii. This analysis would involve examining award amounts, number of bidders, contract types, and project durations to identify patterns in spending, pricing, and competition within this specific market.

Were there any significant cost underruns or overruns during the execution of this contract, and how were they managed?

As this is a firm-fixed-price contract, the risk of significant cost overruns typically lies with the contractor, SUMO-NAN, LLC. The provided data does not detail the project's execution phase or report on any specific cost variances. In a fixed-price scenario, the government's liability is generally capped at the award amount. Any deviations from the contract requirements that might lead to cost changes would need to be formally processed through contract modifications. Without specific execution reports, it's presumed the project was completed within the contracted $28.7 million, or any deviations were managed via approved modifications.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Residential Building Construction › New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders)

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: W9128A11R0006

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2688 KILIHAU ST STE C, HONOLULU, HI, 96819

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,739,342

Exercised Options: $28,739,342

Current Obligation: $28,739,342

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline