James G. Davis Construction Corp. awarded $23M contract for industrial building construction by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,962,571 ($23.0M)

Contractor: James G Davis Construction Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-08-27

End Date: 2011-02-11

Contract Duration: 533 days

Daily Burn Rate: $43.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSOLIDATED NORTH

Place of Performance

Location: ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21005

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.0 million to JAMES G DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORP for work described as: CONSOLIDATED NORTH Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. 3. The contract duration of 533 days (approximately 1.5 years) suggests a medium-term project. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a significant federal agency with substantial construction needs. 5. The project is located in Maryland, potentially impacting the local construction workforce and economy. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this was not specifically targeted for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $23 million contract requires more detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar industrial building construction projects. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests the government secured a defined cost upfront. Without specific performance metrics or a comparison to industry standards for similar construction projects, a definitive value assessment is challenging. The contract's duration and scope would be key factors in determining if the price was competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, implying that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 14 bids suggests a healthy level of competition for this industrial building construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the construction of necessary industrial facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure for military operations or support services. The geographic impact is concentrated in Maryland, potentially creating local jobs and economic activity. The construction workforce in Maryland may see increased employment opportunities during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, though mitigated by firm-fixed-price.
Dependence on contractor's ability to meet schedule and quality standards.
Limited visibility into specific cost components without further data.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract protects the government from cost escalation.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process leading to potentially better value.
Award to a known entity (James G. Davis Construction Corp.) may indicate prior satisfactory performance.

Sector Analysis

Industrial building construction is a significant segment within the broader construction sector, encompassing the building of factories, warehouses, and other facilities for industrial purposes. Federal spending in this area supports national infrastructure, defense readiness, and economic development. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar government or private sector industrial facilities, considering factors like location, complexity, and materials.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee was not a small business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely arise through subcontracting opportunities offered by James G. Davis Construction Corp. The impact on the small business ecosystem depends on the extent to which the prime contractor engages small businesses for specialized services or materials.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon cost and timeline. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and specific cost breakdowns may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns impacting contractor profitability.
Risk of quality compromises if contractor faces financial pressure.
Schedule delays due to unforeseen site conditions or material availability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.0 million to JAMES G DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORP. CONSOLIDATED NORTH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JAMES G DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-08-27. End: 2011-02-11.

What is the typical profit margin for firm fixed-price construction contracts of this size awarded by the Department of the Army?

Determining the exact profit margin for a specific firm fixed-price construction contract is challenging without access to the contractor's internal cost data and bid breakdown. However, industry standards for profit margins in federal construction projects can vary widely based on project complexity, risk, and market conditions. Generally, profit margins for federal construction contracts might range from 5% to 15%. Firm fixed-price contracts, while offering cost certainty to the government, place the cost risk on the contractor, which can influence their pricing strategy and desired profit margin. Factors like the number of competitors, the contractor's overhead, and the specific scope of work significantly impact the final negotiated profit.

How does the awarded amount of $23 million compare to the average cost of similar industrial building construction projects for the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $23 million award to average costs requires detailed analysis of similar projects undertaken by the Department of the Army, considering factors such as square footage, type of construction (e.g., warehouse, manufacturing facility), location, and specific requirements (e.g., specialized environmental controls, security features). Without a database of comparable projects with detailed cost breakdowns, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, $23 million represents a substantial investment, suggesting a project of significant scale or complexity. The number of bidders (14) indicates that the market perceived the project scope and budget as reasonable, potentially aligning with typical project values within the agency's portfolio for industrial facilities.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate the success of industrial building construction contracts?

Key performance indicators for industrial building construction contracts typically revolve around schedule adherence, cost control (within the fixed price), quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and adherence to specifications. For this firm fixed-price contract, meeting the completion deadline (February 11, 2011) and delivering the facility according to the approved plans and specifications without significant change orders would be primary indicators of success. Quality would be assessed through inspections and testing of materials and construction. Safety performance, measured by incident rates, is also crucial. Post-occupancy evaluations might also assess the functionality and durability of the completed structure.

What is the track record of James G. Davis Construction Corp. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of the Army?

To assess the track record of James G. Davis Construction Corp. with federal contracts, one would typically consult federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS-NG. These databases would reveal the company's history of awards, contract values, agencies served, and performance ratings (if available). A review of past performance would indicate their experience with similar types of construction, their ability to manage large federal projects, and their history of compliance with contract terms. Without specific data from these sources, it's presumed that the Department of the Army selected this contractor based on their qualifications and potentially past positive performance, but a detailed review is necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for industrial building construction, and how are they typically mitigated?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price contract lies with the contractor, who assumes responsibility for cost overruns if expenses exceed the agreed-upon price. This can lead to pressure on the contractor to cut corners on quality or safety, although this is mitigated by stringent government oversight and quality control measures. For the government, the risk is that the contractor might be less inclined to incorporate beneficial changes or innovations if they increase costs. Mitigation strategies include thorough pre-award planning and scope definition, robust contract administration, detailed inspection and acceptance processes, and clear communication channels. The government also relies on the contractor's reputation and financial stability to ensure project completion.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912BU09B0019

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12530 PARKLAWN DR #100, ROCKVILLE, MD, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,962,571

Exercised Options: $22,962,571

Current Obligation: $22,962,571

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline