DoD's $24.5M construction contract with Agate Construction Company, Inc. awarded in 2004

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,457,541 ($24.5M)

Contractor: Agate Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-09-30

End Date: 2007-10-31

Contract Duration: 1,126 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: WILDWOOD, CAPE MAY County, NEW JERSEY, 08260

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.5 million to AGATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for heavy and civil engineering construction services. 2. Fixed-price contract type suggests defined scope and cost control. 3. Long duration of over 3 years indicates a substantial project. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, a major DoD component. 5. Contractor has experience in heavy and civil engineering construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $24.5 million for heavy and civil engineering construction is substantial. Without specific deliverables or comparable projects, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the fixed-price contract type generally aims to provide cost certainty for the government. Benchmarking against similar large-scale civil engineering projects would be necessary for a more definitive value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This competitive process is generally expected to yield fair market prices and encourage efficiency from the contractor. The presence of 5 bids suggests a reasonable level of interest and competition for this project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it promotes a competitive environment, potentially leading to lower prices and better quality services compared to less competitive award methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Army, receiving infrastructure development or maintenance. Services delivered include heavy and civil engineering construction, likely for military installations or related facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in New Jersey, where the contractor is located and likely performed the work. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the New Jersey area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract scope was not perfectly defined.
Performance risks associated with large-scale construction projects, including delays and quality issues.
Dependency on a single contractor for the duration of the project.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost predictability.
Contractor's specialization in heavy and civil engineering aligns with the service requirement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction and Engineering Services sector, specifically heavy and civil engineering. This sector is critical for national infrastructure development and maintenance, including military installations. The market size for such services is substantial, with numerous large and small firms competing for government and private contracts. This specific award represents a significant investment in infrastructure by the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates the contractor, Agate Construction Company, Inc., is not a small business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contract value did not directly flow to the small business sector, though subcontracting opportunities may have existed.

Oversight & Accountability

As a definitive contract awarded by the Department of the Army, oversight would typically involve contract officers, project managers, and potentially contracting officer's representatives (CORs) to monitor performance, adherence to terms, and payment. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects
Federal Building and Facilities Construction

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase exposure to unforeseen issues.
Construction projects inherently carry risks of delays and cost overruns.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.5 million to AGATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AGATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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 $24.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-30. End: 2007-10-31.

What specific type of heavy and civil engineering construction was performed under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 237990, 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction.' This broad category can encompass a wide range of projects such as the construction of tunnels, bridges, dams, highways, streets, airports, and other infrastructure. Without more specific contract details or project descriptions, the exact nature of the construction performed (e.g., building a new runway, upgrading a port facility, constructing a specific type of military structure) remains unspecified in the available data. Further research into the contract award details or associated documentation would be required to identify the precise scope of work.

How does the $24.5 million contract value compare to similar construction projects awarded by the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $24.5 million contract value requires context regarding the specific type of heavy and civil engineering construction. For large-scale infrastructure projects like bridge construction, airport upgrades, or major facility development, $24.5 million can be considered a moderate to significant investment. The Department of the Army, through entities like the Army Corps of Engineers, awards contracts ranging from small repair jobs to multi-billion dollar infrastructure programs. To benchmark this specific contract, one would need to identify comparable projects awarded around the same period (2004-2007) for similar types of construction within the Army or other federal agencies. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represents a high, low, or average value for its category.

What were the key performance indicators or metrics used to assess the success of this contract?

The provided data does not include specific performance indicators or metrics used to assess the success of this contract. Typically, for construction contracts, performance is evaluated based on adherence to schedule, budget compliance (especially relevant for fixed-price contracts), quality of workmanship, safety standards, and overall completion of the defined scope of work. Contract closeout documents and performance reports, if available, would contain this information. The fixed-price nature of the award suggests that meeting the agreed-upon price and scope was a primary objective. However, the absence of explicit performance metrics in the summary data limits a detailed assessment.

What is the track record of Agate Construction Company, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Agate Construction Company, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, including this $24.5 million award from the Department of the Army. To assess their overall track record, a comprehensive review of their contract history across various federal agencies would be necessary. This would involve examining the number of contracts awarded, their values, contract types (fixed-price, cost-plus, etc.), performance ratings (if available), and any instances of disputes or contract modifications. A deeper dive into FPDS or other federal procurement databases would reveal the extent and nature of their federal contracting activities, providing insights into their experience and reliability as a government contractor.

Were there any significant risks identified during the bidding or execution phases of this contract?

The provided summary data does not explicitly detail risks identified during the bidding or execution phases. However, for any large-scale civil engineering construction project, inherent risks typically include potential for unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, underground utilities), weather delays, material price fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price), labor availability, and scope creep. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition suggests that potential bidders assessed these risks and submitted proposals accordingly. The long duration (over 3 years) also implies a project with inherent complexities and potential for evolving challenges that require robust project management.

How has spending on 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' by the Department of the Army evolved since this contract was awarded?

Since this contract was awarded in 2004, federal spending, including that by the Department of the Army, on 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' (NAICS 237990) has likely fluctuated based on defense priorities, infrastructure needs, and overall federal budget allocations. Major infrastructure initiatives, base realignments, and national security requirements can drive significant investments in this sector. Analyzing historical spending data from sources like the USASpending.gov or FPDS would reveal trends, peaks, and troughs in Army spending within this category. Factors such as increased focus on military base modernization, port security, or specific engineering challenges could influence spending patterns over the years.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 1030 RT 83, CAPE MAY COURT, NJ, 08210

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $887,200

Exercised Options: $887,200

Current Obligation: $24,457,541

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline