Army awards $21.3M for Fort Carson facility construction, highlighting strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,299,017 ($21.3M)

Contractor: Alliance General Contractors,

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-04-27

End Date: 2009-01-20

Contract Duration: 634 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SOF SUPPORT BATTALION COMPLEX - COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CARSON,CO.

Place of Performance

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

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.3 million to ALLIANCE GENERAL CONTRACTORS, for work described as: SOF SUPPORT BATTALION COMPLEX - COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CARSON,CO. Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Strong competition among bidders likely contributed to price discovery. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of 634 days indicates a substantial construction undertaking. 5. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting broad market access. 6. The project is located in Colorado, impacting regional construction employment.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $21.3 million for a company operations facility appears reasonable given the scope of construction. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract structure suggests that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. The duration of the project (634 days) also aligns with the complexity of constructing a significant facility.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to bid. With three bids received, the level of competition appears moderate. This suggests that the government likely received competitive pricing, although a higher number of bidders could potentially have driven prices lower. The process allowed for a broad range of potential contractors to participate, fostering a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price for the construction services. A competitive bidding environment helps prevent inflated costs and ensures that taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, who will utilize the new facility. The contract delivers a new company operations facility, crucial for military readiness and administrative functions. The geographic impact is concentrated in Colorado Springs, Colorado, supporting the local economy through construction jobs and related services. The project implies a positive workforce implication for the construction industry in the Colorado region during the contract performance period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Ensuring compliance with environmental and safety regulations during construction.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract mitigates cost escalation risk for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Award to a contractor with experience in government construction projects is likely.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. The U.S. construction market is substantial, with significant government spending allocated to infrastructure and facilities. This specific award contributes to the overall spending within the defense construction sub-sector, supporting military base improvements and operational capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other military facility construction projects of similar size and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. The prime contractor, Alliance General Contractors, is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor actively seeks to engage small businesses for specialized construction services or material supply.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the facility according to specifications and timelines. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM)
Department of Defense Construction Projects
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for construction delays.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions.
Contractor financial stability.
Compliance with environmental regulations.
Quality control during construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.3 million to ALLIANCE GENERAL CONTRACTORS,. SOF SUPPORT BATTALION COMPLEX - COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CARSON,CO.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALLIANCE GENERAL CONTRACTORS,.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-04-27. End: 2009-01-20.

What is the track record of Alliance General Contractors with the Department of Defense?

A comprehensive review of Alliance General Contractors' track record with the Department of Defense would require accessing historical contract data beyond this single award. Typically, agencies assess past performance as a key factor in the source selection process. This involves evaluating a contractor's history of meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements on previous government contracts. A positive past performance review suggests a lower risk of contract non-compliance. Conversely, a history of issues could indicate potential risks for future awards. Further investigation into their award history, any past disputes, or performance evaluations would be necessary for a complete assessment.

How does the $21.3 million award compare to similar Army construction projects at other bases?

Comparing the $21.3 million award for the Fort Carson facility to similar Army construction projects requires access to a broader dataset of military construction contracts. Factors such as facility size, complexity, specific functional requirements (e.g., barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings), and geographic location (which influences labor and material costs) all impact project value. Generally, larger and more complex facilities, or those in high-cost-of-living areas, would command higher contract values. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively benchmark this award. However, the value appears substantial, suggesting a significant construction undertaking.

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

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of this magnitude ($21.3 million) is that the contractor assumes the majority of the cost overrun risk. If the contractor encounters unforeseen site conditions, material price escalations beyond what was anticipated, or labor shortages, they may incur losses if they cannot complete the project within the agreed-upon fixed price. While this shifts risk from the government, it can incentivize contractors to cut corners on quality or safety if not adequately monitored. The government's risk is primarily related to ensuring the contractor has the capability and financial stability to absorb potential cost increases and deliver the project as specified.

What is the expected impact of this facility on the operational effectiveness of the Army units at Fort Carson?

The construction of a new company operations facility is expected to enhance the operational effectiveness of Army units at Fort Carson by providing modern, purpose-built infrastructure. Such facilities typically consolidate administrative functions, provide improved workspaces, and may include training or briefing areas, thereby streamlining daily operations and improving unit cohesion. Modern facilities can also contribute to better morale and readiness by offering a more conducive environment for soldiers. The specific impact will depend on the exact functions the facility is designed to support, but generally, it represents an investment in the foundational support structures necessary for military readiness.

How has federal spending on military construction in Colorado trended over the past five years?

Analyzing the trend of federal spending on military construction in Colorado over the past five years would require accessing historical federal procurement data. This would involve filtering awards by agency (e.g., Department of Defense), location (Colorado), and contract type (construction). Trends could be influenced by national defense priorities, base realignment and closure actions, and specific infrastructure needs at Colorado military installations like Fort Carson, Peterson Space Force Base, and Buckley Space Force Base. A detailed analysis would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable, potentially indicating shifts in investment priorities or the lifecycle of infrastructure development at these installations.

What is the significance of the 33595 NAICS code for this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 signifies 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.' This code indicates that the primary activity of the contractor under this award is the construction of non-residential buildings such as commercial establishments, industrial facilities, and public institutions. For this specific contract, it means the work involves building a facility intended for operational use by the Army, fitting the description of an institutional building. This classification helps in categorizing the contract for statistical purposes and understanding the specific industry segment involved in its execution.

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: W9128F07R0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tepa, LLC (UEI: 859154911)

Address: 5045 LIST DRIVE, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,029,017

Exercised Options: $21,299,017

Current Obligation: $21,299,017

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline