Department of the Army awards $30M for Schofield Barracks building repair, highlighting firm-fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,987,364 ($30.0M)

Contractor: Zumwalt Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-09-18

End Date: 2021-05-31

Contract Duration: 1,351 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR BLDG. 452, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS

Place of Performance

Location: SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96857

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.0 million to ZUMWALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR BLDG. 452, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 2. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price indicates predictable costs for the government. 3. The duration of the contract (1351 days) suggests a significant scope of work for building repair. 4. The award to Zumwalt Construction, Inc. represents a substantial single contract for the firm. 5. The project is located in Hawaii, potentially impacting local construction labor markets. 6. The contract value of $29.98M falls within a significant spending category for facility maintenance and repair.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $30 million for building repair at Schofield Barracks appears to be a significant investment. Without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale building repair projects in military installations, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that cost overruns due to contractor performance are less likely, which is a positive indicator for budget predictability. The contract duration of over three years implies a comprehensive scope of work, and the final cost will be a key metric to evaluate against the initial award.

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 fact that it was competed broadly suggests that the Department of the Army sought the most competitive pricing and best value. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition mechanism generally leads to a wider range of proposals and potentially more favorable terms for the government compared to limited or sole-source procurements.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation, ensuring that government funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel and operations at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, who will gain improved facilities. The contract delivers essential repair and maintenance services for Building 452, ensuring operational readiness and safety. The geographic impact is concentrated in Hawaii, potentially stimulating the local economy through construction-related employment and material sourcing. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs in Hawaii, both directly for Zumwalt Construction, Inc. and indirectly through subcontractors and suppliers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for schedule delays given the long contract duration and complexity of building repairs.
Ensuring quality of repairs meets military standards over the extended performance period.
Managing potential cost fluctuations if unforeseen issues arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive award process.
Long contract duration allows for thorough execution of complex repair work.
Award to an established construction company with experience in large projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The U.S. federal government is a major consumer of construction services, particularly for maintaining and upgrading its vast inventory of facilities, including military bases. Spending in this category is often driven by infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and compliance with safety and environmental regulations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale repair and renovation contracts awarded to construction firms for government facilities, both within the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Zumwalt Construction, Inc., is likely a larger entity. While there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals, large federal construction contracts often include provisions for small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Zumwalt Construction, Inc. actively seeks to subcontract portions of the work to qualified small businesses in Hawaii, thereby providing them with opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, which hold the contractor responsible for delivering the specified repairs within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction may be involved if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Infrastructure Modernization
Federal Building Maintenance and Repair
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Construction Services for Government Agencies
Schofield Barracks Operations and Support

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of unforeseen issues.
Potential for quality control challenges over an extended performance period.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant facility repair.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.0 million to ZUMWALT CONSTRUCTION, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR BLDG. 452, SCHOFIELD BARRACKS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ZUMWALT CONSTRUCTION, 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 $30.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-18. End: 2021-05-31.

What is the track record of Zumwalt Construction, Inc. in performing similar large-scale federal building repair contracts?

Assessing the track record of Zumwalt Construction, Inc. requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving building repair and renovation on military installations. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be crucial. Key indicators to examine include their history of on-time completion, adherence to budget (especially on firm-fixed-price contracts), quality of work, and any past disputes or contract terminations. A positive performance history on comparable projects would suggest a lower risk for this current $30 million award.

How does the awarded price of $29.98 million compare to market rates for similar building repair projects in Hawaii?

Benchmarking the $29.98 million award against market rates for similar building repair projects in Hawaii is essential for evaluating value for money. This would involve comparing the contract's scope, scale, and specific repair types (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing, HVAC) to publicly available cost data for commercial or institutional construction in the region. Factors such as prevailing labor rates, material costs specific to Hawaii (which can be higher due to logistics), and the complexity of working on a military installation need to be considered. Without detailed cost breakdowns or access to specific market analysis reports, a precise comparison is difficult, but the contract's duration and scope suggest a substantial project.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this magnitude and duration?

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty, risks remain, especially for a large, long-duration project like this $30 million building repair. The primary risk for the government is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maximize profit if unforeseen difficulties arise, potentially leading to subpar repairs. For the contractor, the risk is absorbing unexpected cost increases due to unforeseen site conditions, material price escalations, or labor shortages, which could lead to financial strain or project abandonment if not managed carefully. Effective oversight and clear performance standards are critical to mitigate these risks.

How effective are the oversight mechanisms for ensuring the quality and timely completion of this extensive building repair project?

The effectiveness of oversight for this contract hinges on the Department of the Army's project management and quality assurance processes. Given the $30 million value and multi-year duration, robust oversight is expected, likely involving dedicated contracting officer representatives (CORs) or technical experts on-site. These individuals are responsible for monitoring progress, verifying work quality against specifications, approving payments, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. The firm-fixed-price nature places the onus on the contractor for performance, but government oversight is crucial for validating that performance meets all requirements and for identifying potential issues early.

What is the historical spending pattern for building repair and maintenance at Schofield Barracks or similar Army installations?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for building repair and maintenance at Schofield Barracks and comparable Army installations provides context for the $29.98 million award. This involves examining past contract awards for facility upkeep, renovation, and repair over several fiscal years. Trends in spending can reveal whether this contract represents a typical investment, a surge due to deferred maintenance, or a specific modernization initiative. Understanding historical spending helps assess if the current investment aligns with long-term facility management strategies and budget allocations for infrastructure at Army bases.

What are the implications of the 1351-day contract duration on project management and potential for scope creep?

A contract duration of 1351 days (approximately 3.7 years) for building repair signifies a substantial and complex undertaking. This extended timeline necessitates rigorous project management to maintain momentum, control costs, and ensure quality over the long haul. Potential risks include contractor burnout, loss of key personnel, and evolving building codes or operational needs that might necessitate scope adjustments. For the government, managing such a long-term project requires sustained oversight and clear communication channels to prevent scope creep, which could inflate costs beyond the initial fixed price, or to formally manage any necessary changes through contract modifications.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W9128A17B0002

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5520 E LAMONA AVE, FRESNO, CA, 93727

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: $29,987,364

Exercised Options: $29,987,364

Current Obligation: $29,987,364

Actual Outlays: $2,145,201

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline