Hensel Phelps Construction Co. awarded $34.3M for COF AND BARRACKS construction, highlighting firm fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,271,815 ($34.3M)

Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-31

End Date: 2008-11-18

Contract Duration: 537 days

Daily Burn Rate: $63.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: COF AND BARRACKS

Place of Performance

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

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.3 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: COF AND BARRACKS Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type generally shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. The duration of 537 days indicates a significant construction project timeline. 4. The contract was awarded to Hensel Phelps Construction Co., a known entity in the construction sector. 5. The project is categorized under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major federal agency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable project data. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the initial bid was considered competitive. The total award amount of $34.3 million for barracks and related facilities needs to be assessed against the scope of work, materials, and labor costs typical for such projects in Colorado during 2007-2008. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar government or private sector projects from that period, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three bids generally provide a reasonable basis for price discovery and selection.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, potentially leading to lower prices and better value.

Public Impact

Military personnel stationed at the facility will benefit from improved living quarters (COF AND BARRACKS). The construction services delivered will enhance the infrastructure of the Department of the Army. The geographic impact is localized to Colorado, where the construction will take place. The project will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within Colorado.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise, despite the firm fixed-price contract.
Quality control during construction to ensure durability and adherence to specifications.
Timeliness of project completion to meet operational needs of the Army.
Long-term maintenance costs associated with the newly constructed facilities.

Positive Signals

Award to an established construction company with a track record.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition promotes competitive pricing.
Clear project scope for barracks and related facilities.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the federal contracting landscape, encompassing a wide range of projects from infrastructure to facility maintenance. This contract falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a sub-sector that includes the building of non-residential structures. Federal spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain and upgrade military bases and government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other barracks construction or renovation projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other agencies during the same period.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears limited for this particular award. However, the prime contractor, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or materials, which would indirectly benefit them.

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 inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Barracks Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for quality issues in firm fixed-price contracts if not adequately overseen.
Risk associated with project duration and potential for delays.
Limited competition (3 bidders) may reduce price negotiation leverage.
Dependence on contractor's financial stability and performance history.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.3 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. COF AND BARRACKS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-31. End: 2008-11-18.

What is Hensel Phelps Construction Co.'s track record with the Department of the Army for similar construction projects?

Hensel Phelps Construction Co. has a substantial history of contracting with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies for large-scale construction projects. While specific details on prior barracks construction for the Army are not provided in this data snippet, their extensive experience in military construction, including projects like aircraft hangars, training facilities, and administrative buildings, suggests a strong capability. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm fixed-price contracts would be crucial to assess their reliability in terms of cost control and schedule adherence. A review of past performance evaluations and any documented disputes or claims would offer further insight into their track record with the Army.

How does the $34.3 million award compare to the average cost of similar barracks construction projects during the 2007-2008 period?

Directly comparing the $34.3 million award to average costs is difficult without specific project parameters such as square footage, capacity, location-specific labor and material costs, and the level of amenities. However, barracks construction costs can vary significantly. In the mid-2000s, per-square-foot costs for institutional buildings could range widely, often from $150 to $300 or more, depending on complexity and finishes. For a project of this magnitude, awarded in 2007, the price point suggests a substantial facility. To provide a more accurate comparison, one would need to identify similar Department of Defense barracks projects awarded around the same time and analyze their total cost, size, and scope.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this firm fixed-price contract for barracks construction?

The primary risk indicator for the government in a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or materials to maximize profit, especially if unforeseen site conditions or cost increases occur. While the FFP shifts cost overrun risk to Hensel Phelps, the government still bears the risk of receiving a facility that may not meet long-term durability or performance expectations if quality control is insufficient. Another risk is the contractor's financial stability and capacity to manage a project of this scale over its 537-day duration. The limited number of bids (3) could also indicate a risk if the chosen contractor underperforms, as competitive alternatives might be scarce.

What does the 'COF AND BARRACKS' designation imply about the program effectiveness and intended use?

The designation 'COF AND BARRACKS' typically refers to 'Company Operations Facilities' and 'Barracks.' This implies the contract is for the construction of living quarters and associated operational support facilities for military personnel, likely at the company level. Program effectiveness in this context would be measured by the successful completion of facilities that provide safe, adequate, and modern living and working environments for soldiers. The intended use is to house and support military units, contributing directly to the readiness and morale of the troops stationed there. The quality and timeliness of this construction directly impact the effectiveness of the unit's mission.

How has federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction, particularly for the Department of the Army, trended historically?

Federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction, especially by the Department of the Army, tends to fluctuate based on geopolitical conditions, military readiness requirements, and budget allocations. Historically, significant investments are made during periods of military expansion or modernization, and for replacing aging infrastructure. The mid-2000s saw considerable military construction spending, partly due to ongoing operations and the need to upgrade facilities. Post-2008, spending patterns may have shifted due to economic conditions and evolving defense strategies. Analyzing historical spending data for NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) awarded by the Army would reveal trends, peak spending periods, and the relative significance of projects like barracks construction.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in Colorado (SN: COLORADO)?

The contract being awarded for a project in Colorado signifies a localized economic impact, primarily benefiting the construction workforce and material suppliers within that state. It also indicates the Department of the Army's need for facility upgrades or new construction at a base or installation located in Colorado. The specific location influences labor costs, material availability, and logistical considerations, all of which are factored into the bidding process. Understanding the specific installation would provide further context on the strategic importance of the facility being built or upgraded.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: W9128F07R0005

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 420 6TH AVE, GREELEY, CO, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,271,815

Exercised Options: $34,271,815

Current Obligation: $34,271,815

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline