DoD's $14.7M Peterson AFB Child Development Center contract awarded to MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,682,224 ($14.7M)

Contractor: Maxfour Engineers and Architects, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-29

End Date: 2018-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,288 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#TDKA11307::RFP MILITARY - TDKA11307 - PETERSON CONSTRUCT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, PETERSON AFB, CO

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80914

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.7 million to MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LLC for work described as: TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#TDKA11307::RFP MILITARY - TDKA11307 - PETERSON CONSTRUCT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, PETERSON AFB, CO Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military family support infrastructure. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract (over 8 years) indicates a long-term commitment to the project. 4. The fixed-price contract type generally shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 5. The project's location in Colorado suggests a focus on supporting military personnel in that region. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates the primary award was not specifically targeted for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable projects for child development centers at military installations. However, the total value of $14.7 million over nearly nine years suggests a substantial investment per year. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bore the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per child capacity against similar facilities.

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,' which is a complex designation. While it implies an initial broad solicitation, the exclusion of sources suggests specific criteria were applied that limited the pool of eligible bidders. The presence of 9 bidders indicates a degree of competition, but the exclusion clause warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the final price and the range of potential solutions considered.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature, despite source exclusions, likely contributed to price discovery. However, understanding the specific exclusions is crucial to determine if the most cost-effective options were fully explored for taxpayer benefit.

Public Impact

Military families stationed at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, will benefit from improved child development facilities. The contract supports the construction and potentially long-term maintenance of a critical support service for military personnel. The project's geographic impact is localized to Peterson AFB, Colorado. The construction phase likely created temporary employment opportunities in the local Colorado workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the full and open competition requires deeper scrutiny to ensure it did not unduly limit competition and potentially inflate costs.
The long contract duration (over 8 years) necessitates robust oversight to ensure continued performance and value.
The specific nature of the construction project (child development center) requires specialized expertise, and the contractor's track record in similar projects should be verified.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a competitive process, indicating multiple firms vied for the opportunity.
The firm fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The project addresses a critical need for military family support services.

Sector Analysis

The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector encompasses a wide range of projects, from schools and hospitals to government facilities. This contract falls within the government construction sub-sector, specifically for a military installation. Spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, force protection requirements, and quality-of-life improvements for service members and their families. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within Department of Defense construction budgets and specific military branch facility modernization programs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best value through open competition, rather than specifically reserving the contract for small businesses. While there's no direct indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data, large construction projects often include provisions for small business participation to foster a broader economic impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army, which awarded the contract on behalf of the Department of Defense. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and payment milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. The Inspector General for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Family Housing Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Child Care Services Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.
Contractor's specific experience with similar projects needs verification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.7 million to MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LLC. TAS::57 3307::TAS RECOVERYPROJECT#TDKA11307::RFP MILITARY - TDKA11307 - PETERSON CONSTRUCT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, PETERSON AFB, CO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, 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 $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-29. End: 2018-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'exclusion of sources' in this full and open competition, and how did it impact the bidding pool?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (CT: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES) indicates that while the solicitation was initially intended for broad competition, certain sources were subsequently excluded. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed in the provided data but could stem from specific technical requirements, past performance issues, security clearances, or other pre-qualification criteria. The impact on the bidding pool is that it was smaller than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. This could potentially lead to less price competition if the exclusions were too restrictive, or it could ensure that only highly qualified bidders participated, potentially leading to better project outcomes. Further investigation into the solicitation documents would be necessary to understand the specific exclusions and their rationale.

How does the contract value of $14.7 million compare to similar child development center construction projects at other military installations?

Directly comparing the $14.7 million contract value for the Peterson AFB Child Development Center without additional project specifics is difficult. Key factors influencing cost include square footage, capacity (number of children served), specific design requirements (e.g., LEED certification, security features), and regional construction labor and material costs. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need data on similar-sized and equipped child development centers at other military bases. Benchmarking would involve calculating cost per square foot or cost per child capacity and comparing these metrics against a database of comparable projects. Without such data, the $14.7 million figure serves as an absolute cost but lacks relative value context.

What is MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LLC's track record with large-scale federal construction projects, particularly for the Department of Defense?

Information regarding MAXFOUR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, LLC's specific track record with large-scale federal construction projects, especially for the Department of Defense, is not provided in the initial data. To assess their capability and past performance, one would typically review their contract history, including the types and values of previous projects, client satisfaction ratings, and any documented performance issues or awards. Databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or SAM.gov would be essential resources for this analysis. Understanding their experience with similar facility types (e.g., educational, institutional, or government buildings) and their history of adhering to schedules and budgets would be crucial for evaluating their suitability for this project.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, what mechanisms were in place to manage potential cost overruns or scope creep during the contract's long duration?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract places the primary responsibility for cost control on the contractor. However, robust government oversight is still critical, especially for a contract spanning over eight years. Mechanisms typically in place include detailed contract specifications, regular progress reviews, site inspections, and clear change order procedures. The government would monitor the contractor's adherence to the schedule and quality standards. Any deviations or requests for changes outside the original scope would need to be formally processed through a change order process, which would include negotiation of any associated cost or schedule impacts. Effective communication channels and a proactive project management approach by the contracting officer's representative (COR) are essential to prevent scope creep and manage risks.

What is the historical spending trend for child development centers or similar family support facilities at Peterson AFB or within the Department of the Army?

The provided data does not include historical spending trends for child development centers or similar family support facilities at Peterson AFB or within the Department of the Army. To analyze such trends, one would need access to historical procurement data over several fiscal years. This analysis would involve identifying all contracts related to child development centers, family housing, or other quality-of-life facilities awarded to Peterson AFB or managed by the Department of the Army. Examining the total obligated amounts, contract durations, and the number of awards over time would reveal patterns in investment, potential increases or decreases in spending, and the types of contracts utilized. This historical context is vital for understanding if the $14.7 million award represents a typical investment or a significant deviation.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9128F09R0090

Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3435 S INCA STE C, ENGLEWOOD, CO, 80110

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Other Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,682,224

Exercised Options: $14,682,224

Current Obligation: $14,682,224

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline