Air Force awarded $24.6M for 4 single-family bedroom units in North Carolina

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,605,608 ($24.6M)

Contractor: Daniels & Daniels Construction CO Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-26

End Date: 2010-03-25

Contract Duration: 911 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FGO 4 - BEDROOM UNITS SINGLE FAMILY

Place of Performance

Location: GOLDSBORO, WAYNE County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27531

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.6 million to DANIELS & DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CO INC for work described as: FGO 4 - BEDROOM UNITS SINGLE FAMILY Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for new construction of residential units. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 911 days indicates a substantial construction project. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Project is located in North Carolina, impacting local workforce and economy. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $24.6 million for 4 single-family bedroom units, averaging approximately $6.15 million per unit, seems high at first glance. However, this likely reflects the cost of new construction, including land acquisition, materials, labor, and associated development costs for a substantial project. Without specific details on the size, amenities, and location within North Carolina, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids but provides budget certainty for the government.

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 a bid. The presence of 4 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, a competition with multiple participants generally leads to better price discovery and a more competitive outcome than a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, potentially leading to lower prices and better value for the government's investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force and potentially military families who will occupy the housing units. The contract delivers new single-family residential housing units. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, specifically in the area where the construction took place. The project likely created jobs in the construction sector within the local North Carolina workforce.

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 construction variables.
Risk of construction delays impacting the delivery of essential housing.
Quality control concerns inherent in any large-scale construction project.
Contractor's past performance and financial stability could pose risks if not thoroughly vetted.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to a specific construction company implies they met the technical and performance requirements.
The project addresses a need for housing, which is critical for military readiness and personnel morale.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically new multifamily housing construction. The market for military housing construction is a specialized segment driven by government demand and specific requirements. Benchmarking this contract against private sector residential construction is difficult due to the unique nature of military installations and associated security, infrastructure, and long-term maintenance considerations. The total value of $24.6 million for 4 units suggests a significant investment per unit, likely encompassing more than just the physical structure.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting goals for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this project would likely be through direct subcontracting by the prime contractor, Daniels & Daniels Construction Co Inc. The absence of a set-aside indicates that the competition was open to all eligible firms, regardless of size.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant contracting office within the Department of the Air Force. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the government's primary oversight will focus on ensuring the contractor meets the specified deliverables, quality standards, and schedule. 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

Military Family Housing Construction
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
New Residential Construction
Federal Real Property Management

Risk Flags

High per-unit cost
Long contract duration
Potential for construction cost overruns (contractor risk)
Quality control during construction

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.6 million to DANIELS & DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CO INC. FGO 4 - BEDROOM UNITS SINGLE FAMILY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DANIELS & DANIELS CONSTRUCTION CO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-26. End: 2010-03-25.

What is the typical cost per square foot for new single-family home construction in North Carolina during the contract period (2007-2010)?

During the period of 2007-2010, the average cost per square foot for new single-family home construction in North Carolina varied significantly by region and specific features. However, general estimates place the cost between $100-$150 per square foot, excluding land acquisition and significant site development. Given the contract value of $24.6 million for 4 units, and assuming a substantial size for military housing (e.g., 2,500 sq ft per unit), the implied cost per square foot could be considerably higher than the market average. This suggests that the contract likely included extensive site preparation, infrastructure, higher-end finishes, or was located in a high-cost area, and potentially accounted for long-term durability and maintenance requirements specific to military housing.

How does the price per unit compare to other military housing construction contracts awarded around the same time?

Comparing the price per unit of approximately $6.15 million for these 4 single-family bedroom units to other military housing construction contracts awarded around 2007-2010 is complex without more specific data. Military housing projects often involve significant infrastructure development, land acquisition, and specialized requirements beyond standard residential construction, which can inflate per-unit costs. Projects on military bases may also face unique logistical challenges and security protocols. However, $6.15 million per unit is exceptionally high for typical residential construction. It is possible this contract included substantial land development, utility infrastructure, or was for very large, high-specification homes, or perhaps represented a portfolio of units rather than just the physical structures themselves. Further investigation into the scope of work and location would be necessary for a precise comparison.

What was the track record of Daniels & Daniels Construction Co Inc. prior to this award?

Information regarding the specific track record of Daniels & Daniels Construction Co Inc. prior to this 2007 award is not detailed in the provided data. However, for any federal contract, especially one of this magnitude, the contractor would have undergone a pre-qualification process. This typically involves reviewing past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities. The fact that they were awarded this significant contract suggests they met the Department of the Air Force's requirements at the time. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) and contractor performance assessments would be needed to fully ascertain their historical performance, including any previous government contracts, project successes, or reported issues.

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

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for new construction of this scale lies with the contractor. While FFP contracts offer budget certainty to the government, they place the burden of cost overruns on the contractor. If the contractor underestimates material costs, labor, or encounters unforeseen site conditions (e.g., poor soil, unexpected utility conflicts), they may incur losses. Conversely, if the contractor is highly efficient or bids conservatively, they could realize significant profit. For the government, the risk shifts to ensuring the contractor has the capability and financial stability to complete the project to the required standards, as a contractor facing financial distress could lead to project delays or default. Robust oversight is still necessary to ensure quality and adherence to specifications.

How has federal spending on military housing construction evolved since 2007?

Federal spending on military housing construction has seen fluctuations since 2007, influenced by factors such as military readiness needs, budget appropriations, and public-private partnerships. Following the initial surge in construction and privatization efforts in the early 2000s, spending patterns have adapted to evolving defense budgets and housing standards. While direct government construction like this contract continues, there has also been a significant trend towards leveraging private sector investment through Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects. These initiatives aim to expedite housing development and upgrades by partnering with private companies. Overall, the focus remains on providing adequate and modern housing for service members and their families, but the methods of funding and delivery have diversified.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Residential Building Construction › New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders)

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: W912DQ07R0037

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 178 NC HIGHWAY 111 S, GOLDSBORO, NC, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,966,802

Exercised Options: $24,605,608

Current Obligation: $24,605,608

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline