Fort Carson road realignment contract awarded to B&M Torix JV for $23.2M, completed in 2007

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,215,047 ($23.2M)

Contractor: B&M Torix JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-06

End Date: 2007-12-27

Contract Duration: 477 days

Daily Burn Rate: $48.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ROAD RELIGNMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, FORT CARSON, CO

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80913

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.2 million to B&M TORIX JV for work described as: ROAD RELIGNMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, FORT CARSON, CO Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for infrastructure work of this scope and duration. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 477 days indicates a significant project timeline. 4. Project involved road realignment and infrastructure, crucial for base operations. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting defense sector investment. 6. Fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $23.2 million for road realignment and infrastructure at Fort Carson appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this nature and duration (477 days). Without specific benchmarks for similar military base infrastructure projects in Colorado during that period, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the fixed-price contract type generally favors the government by shifting cost overrun risks to the contractor, contributing to a potentially good value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that the solicitation was broadly advertised, and multiple bids were likely considered. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring a fair market price. This approach aims to maximize the pool of potential offerors and encourage competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price and quality by allowing all qualified contractors to bid.

Public Impact

Military personnel and operations at Fort Carson, Colorado, benefit from improved road infrastructure. The project delivered essential infrastructure upgrades, enhancing base functionality and safety. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Carson, Colorado. The contract supported construction and trade labor within the specialty contractor sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in infrastructure projects if not managed tightly.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant infrastructure project carries inherent risks.
Ensuring compliance with environmental regulations during construction can be complex.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract helps control costs for the government.
Full and open competition generally leads to better pricing.
Project completion within the specified timeframe (477 days) indicates good project management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Specialty Trade Contractors sector, specifically related to infrastructure development. The market for military base construction and maintenance is substantial, with significant government spending allocated annually. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other military construction projects or large-scale civil engineering endeavors, where competition and contract type heavily influence pricing.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the awardee, B&M Torix JV, is likely a joint venture. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor engaged small businesses for specialized services or supplies.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures would include adherence to contract terms, performance standards, and financial reporting. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight documentation may not be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Operations Support
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Infrastructure Development Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions
Risk of weather-related delays
Need for robust government oversight on fixed-price contracts

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.2 million to B&M TORIX JV. ROAD RELIGNMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, FORT CARSON, CO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is B&M TORIX JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-06. End: 2007-12-27.

What was the track record of B&M Torix JV prior to this award?

Information regarding the specific track record of B&M Torix JV prior to this 2006 award is not readily available in public databases. As a joint venture, its performance history would be a composite of its constituent companies or its own operational history. Federal contracting databases typically track past performance on awarded contracts. Without further specific inquiries or access to proprietary performance evaluations, a detailed assessment of their prior track record is limited. However, the successful completion of this contract suggests a level of capability in executing infrastructure projects for the Department of Defense.

How does the awarded value compare to similar road realignment projects at other military bases?

Comparing the $23.2 million awarded value for this Fort Carson project to similar road realignment projects at other military bases requires access to a comprehensive database of comparable contracts, including project scope, location, time of award, and specific infrastructure components. Publicly available data often lacks the granularity for direct, precise comparisons. However, projects of this scale on military installations typically involve significant civil engineering, environmental considerations, and adherence to stringent security protocols, which can influence costs. The fixed-price nature of this contract suggests a defined scope, and the number of bids (3) indicates some level of market competition, which are positive indicators for value.

What were the primary risks associated with this infrastructure project?

Primary risks associated with this road realignment and infrastructure project likely included unforeseen subsurface conditions (e.g., soil instability, underground utilities), weather delays impacting the construction schedule, potential for material cost fluctuations, and ensuring minimal disruption to ongoing base operations. Environmental compliance during construction, such as managing runoff and protecting local ecosystems, also presents a risk. The fixed-price contract structure shifts some financial risk to the contractor, but risks related to schedule delays and scope creep would still require diligent government oversight.

How effective was the project in improving Fort Carson's operational capabilities?

The effectiveness of the road realignment and infrastructure project in improving Fort Carson's operational capabilities can be inferred from its purpose. Improved road networks typically enhance logistical efficiency, reduce traffic congestion, improve safety for personnel and vehicles, and support the overall mission readiness of the base. While specific metrics on operational improvements are not provided, the completion of such infrastructure work is generally considered essential for maintaining and enhancing the functionality of a large military installation like Fort Carson.

What is the historical spending trend for similar infrastructure projects at Fort Carson?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar infrastructure projects at Fort Carson would require a detailed review of past Department of Defense and Department of the Army contracts awarded for construction and infrastructure development at that specific installation. This contract, awarded in 2006 for $23.2 million, represents a significant investment. Understanding trends would involve looking at the frequency, size, and types of infrastructure contracts awarded over several years to identify patterns in spending, potential increases or decreases in project costs, and the prevalence of different contract types and competition levels.

Were there any significant cost overruns or contract modifications?

Based on the available data, there is no immediate indication of significant cost overruns or major contract modifications for this specific contract. The contract was awarded as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type, which generally aims to cap costs for the government. While contract modifications can occur for various reasons (e.g., scope adjustments, unforeseen conditions), the absence of readily available data on modifications suggests that the project may have proceeded relatively close to its original terms and budget. A deeper dive into contract modification logs would be needed for a definitive answer.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9128F06R0020

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3134 BEACON ST, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 05

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Veteran Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,215,047

Exercised Options: $23,215,047

Current Obligation: $23,215,047

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline