Fort Sill construction contract awarded to Harper Construction Company for over $43 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,010,710 ($43.0M)

Contractor: Harper Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-06-27

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $52.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SILL PN 64738; D/B, BRAC ADA; C4-1 AND STINGER AVENGER AND C4I GIF, FORT SILL

Place of Performance

Location: FORT SILL, COMANCHE County, OKLAHOMA, 73503

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $43.0 million to HARPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: SILL PN 64738; D/B, BRAC ADA; C4-1 AND STINGER AVENGER AND C4I GIF, FORT SILL Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of over two years indicates a substantial undertaking. 5. Geographic location in Oklahoma may influence local economic impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $43,010,710 for construction services at Fort Sill appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale military construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the price was competitive. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar scope projects, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of four bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition increases the likelihood of obtaining a fair market price, benefiting taxpayers by potentially lowering overall project costs compared to less competitive procurement methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and its personnel stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, who will gain improved facilities. The contract delivers construction services for C4-1 and Stinger Avenger and C4I GIF at Fort Sill. The geographic impact is concentrated in Lawton, Oklahoma, and surrounding areas, potentially boosting the local economy. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades in the region during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract did not adequately account for all project contingencies.
Risk of schedule delays impacting the readiness or operational capabilities at Fort Sill.
Quality control issues could arise in large-scale construction projects, requiring diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing.
Award to a single contractor streamlines management and accountability for the construction effort.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area often supports military readiness, government operations, and infrastructure development. The market size for federal construction is substantial, with numerous firms competing for these projects. This specific contract for military facilities aligns with typical government procurement patterns for base improvements and modernization.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This means that the primary award went to a large business, Harper Construction Company. The absence of small business set-asides or explicit subcontracting goals could limit opportunities for smaller firms to participate in this specific project, potentially impacting the broader small business ecosystem involved in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices at Fort Sill. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Fort Sill Infrastructure Modernization Projects
Department of Defense Military Construction Program
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Facility Upgrades

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays
Risk of quality compromises in fixed-price contracts
Need for robust oversight due to long duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $43.0 million to HARPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. SILL PN 64738; D/B, BRAC ADA; C4-1 AND STINGER AVENGER AND C4I GIF, FORT SILL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARPER 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 $43.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-27. End: 2009-09-30.

What is Harper Construction Company's track record with similar federal contracts?

Harper Construction Company, Inc. has a history of securing and performing on federal construction contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes projects for military bases, involving new construction, renovations, and infrastructure upgrades. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any contract modifications, and on-time completion rates for similar-sized projects would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability. Specific details on past projects, including their scope, value, and client satisfaction, are crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their track record in executing complex federal construction endeavors.

How does the awarded price compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects?

A precise comparison of the $43 million award to industry benchmarks requires detailed project specifications (e.g., square footage, type of construction, specific systems installed like C4I). However, for large-scale institutional or military construction, this value is within a typical range. Benchmarking would involve comparing cost per square foot, or cost per specific unit (e.g., per barracks room, per command center module) against similar projects completed by other government agencies or in the private sector. Factors like geographic location (labor costs, material availability) and the complexity of integrated systems (C4I, Stinger Avenger support) significantly influence costs, making direct comparisons challenging without granular data.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, while generally favorable to the government by capping costs, lies in the contractor's potential to cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if their initial bid was too low or unforeseen issues arise. For Harper Construction, risks include underestimating material costs, labor shortages, or encountering unexpected site conditions at Fort Sill, which could lead to delays or disputes if not managed proactively. The government's risk is ensuring adequate oversight to prevent substandard work and managing the schedule to meet operational needs, even if the price is fixed.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring value for this type of military construction?

The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered highly effective in ensuring value for military construction projects like this one. By allowing all responsible contractors to bid, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that four bids were received suggests sufficient market interest. This approach maximizes the potential for the government to secure the best possible price and quality combination. Effective implementation requires clear solicitation documents and a fair evaluation process, ensuring that the lowest price isn't the sole determinant if other factors like technical approach or past performance are critical.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar construction projects at Fort Sill?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for construction at Fort Sill would involve reviewing past contracts awarded for base infrastructure, barracks, training facilities, and command and control systems. This contract's value of over $43 million for specific C4I and Avenger support facilities should be compared against the scale and scope of previous projects. Trends might reveal whether spending on modernization is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. Understanding the average cost per square foot or per project type over time can help contextualize the current award and identify potential anomalies or consistent investment levels in maintaining and upgrading the base's capabilities.

What are the implications of the contract duration (826 days) on project oversight and risk?

A contract duration of 826 days (approximately 2.26 years) for a project of this magnitude necessitates sustained and diligent oversight from the Department of the Army. Long durations increase the risk of scope creep, material price fluctuations (though mitigated by FFP), and potential contractor performance degradation over time. It also means the facilities being upgraded or constructed will be unavailable or impacted for an extended period. Effective oversight requires regular progress reviews, quality assurance checks, and proactive management of any potential delays or issues to ensure the project stays on track and meets its objectives within the fixed price.

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: W912BV06R2029

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2241 KETTNER BLVD STE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $43,010,710

Exercised Options: $43,010,710

Current Obligation: $43,010,710

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline