Army awards $13M firm-fixed-price contract for permanent party barracks construction in Missouri

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,981,218 ($13.0M)

Contractor: Wilson, S M & CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-27

End Date: 2007-12-21

Contract Duration: 450 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PERMANENT PARTY BARRACKS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEONARD WOOD, PULASKI County, MISSOURI, 65473

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.0 million to WILSON, S M & CO for work described as: PERMANENT PARTY BARRACKS Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract value of $12.98M for a 450-day duration indicates a significant investment in military infrastructure. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs for the government. 4. Construction services for barracks are essential for troop housing and readiness. 5. The award to Wilson, S M & Co suggests a focus on established construction firms for this type of project.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12,981,218 for 450 days of construction work needs further benchmarking against similar barracks projects. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to market rates for construction in Missouri, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty but doesn't inherently guarantee the lowest possible price.

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. The presence of 5 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition for this construction project. This competitive environment is generally expected to drive prices towards market rates and encourage efficiency from bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for infrastructure projects like barracks construction is beneficial for taxpayers as it helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for services and that funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

Service members stationed in Missouri will benefit from improved housing facilities. The project delivers essential construction services for military barracks. The geographic impact is localized to the specific Army installation in Missouri where the barracks are being built. The construction project will likely create temporary employment opportunities for the local workforce during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Quality control and adherence to construction standards will be critical to ensure long-term durability of the barracks.
Timeliness of completion is important for troop readiness and housing availability.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to a single contractor streamlines management and accountability.
Construction of essential troop housing directly supports military readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending on military construction, including barracks, is a consistent driver of activity in this sector. Benchmarking this contract's value against other similar federal construction projects would provide further insight into its cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is Wilson, S M & Co, there is no information provided on subcontracting plans or their utilization of small businesses. Further investigation would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting office and potentially the relevant Inspector General's office. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the primary responsibility for cost control. Transparency would be enhanced by public availability of performance reports and final cost data.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Barracks Construction Contracts
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of quality compromises if contractor faces financial pressure.
Timeliness of delivery is critical for operational readiness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.0 million to WILSON, S M & CO. PERMANENT PARTY BARRACKS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WILSON, S M & 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 $13.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-27. End: 2007-12-21.

What is the historical spending pattern for permanent party barracks construction by the Department of the Army in Missouri?

Analyzing historical spending for permanent party barracks construction by the Department of the Army in Missouri would require access to historical contract databases. This specific contract, valued at approximately $13 million and awarded in 2006, represents a single data point. To establish a pattern, one would need to aggregate data over several fiscal years, identifying trends in contract values, number of awards, and types of construction. Factors such as military base expansion, troop level changes, and infrastructure modernization initiatives would influence these patterns. Without a broader dataset, it's challenging to determine if this $13 million award aligns with historical norms or represents an outlier in terms of cost or scale for barracks projects in the region.

How does the awarded price per square foot for these barracks compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction in Missouri?

To compare the awarded price per square foot to industry benchmarks, we would need the total square footage of the constructed barracks, which is not provided in the data. Assuming the contract value of $12,981,218 is for the entire project, and if we had the square footage, we could calculate a cost per square foot. This figure could then be compared to average construction costs for institutional or commercial buildings in Missouri, which vary based on materials, complexity, and specific location. Industry reports from construction cost estimators or real estate data firms would provide these benchmarks. A higher cost per square foot than the benchmark might indicate premium materials, complex design, or a less competitive bidding environment, while a lower cost could suggest efficiency or aggressive bidding.

What is the track record of Wilson, S M & Co in completing similar federal construction contracts on time and within budget?

Assessing the track record of Wilson, S M & Co requires reviewing their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving military construction or barracks. This would involve examining contract databases for past awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented instances of delays, cost overruns, or disputes. A history of successful, timely, and budget-adherent project completions would indicate reliability. Conversely, a pattern of issues might raise concerns about their capacity to deliver this specific barracks project effectively. Without direct access to their performance history, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability for this $13 million contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a construction project of this magnitude?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for a construction project of this magnitude ($12.98M) is that the contractor, Wilson, S M & Co, assumes the majority of the cost risk. If the contractor underestimates costs for labor, materials, or unforeseen site conditions, they may incur losses. Conversely, if they accurately estimate or find efficiencies, they retain the profit. For the government, the risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality to protect their profit margin if costs escalate unexpectedly, or that the initial price, while fixed, might have been inflated due to the contractor anticipating potential risks. Robust government oversight and clear specifications are crucial to mitigate quality concerns.

How does the duration of the contract (450 days) align with typical construction timelines for barracks of this size?

A contract duration of 450 days (approximately 15 months) for a $13 million barracks construction project appears reasonable, assuming it encompasses all phases from mobilization to substantial completion and final acceptance. Typical construction timelines are influenced by project complexity, size, weather, and the availability of labor and materials. For barracks, which often involve repetitive unit layouts but require significant site work and utility connections, 15 months is a plausible timeframe. Benchmarking against similar projects awarded by the Army or other branches would provide a clearer picture of whether this duration is standard, aggressive, or potentially lengthy, which could impact overall project cost and troop housing availability.

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: W912DQ06R0041

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2185 HAMPTON, SAINT LOUIS, MO, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,981,218

Exercised Options: $12,981,218

Current Obligation: $12,981,218

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline