Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc. awarded $15.4M for Building 20 renovation by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,387,953 ($15.4M)

Contractor: Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-10-17

End Date: 2026-06-20

Contract Duration: 1,342 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: RENOVATION OF BUILDING 20

Place of Performance

Location: WATERVLIET, ALBANY County, NEW YORK, 12189

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.4 million to INTERCONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING INC for work described as: RENOVATION OF BUILDING 20 Key points: 1. The contract value of $15.4 million for a building renovation appears within a typical range for such projects, but requires benchmarking against similar scope and complexity. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting a competitive environment that should theoretically drive favorable pricing. 3. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price suggests a clear scope and risk allocation, though potential for change orders exists. 4. Performance context is limited to the contract duration, with no immediate indicators of project success or challenges. 5. The sector positioning is within commercial and institutional building construction, a mature market with established cost structures. 6. The contract's duration of over three years warrants monitoring for potential cost overruns or schedule delays.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $15.4 million for the renovation of Building 20 is substantial. Without specific details on the scope of work (e.g., square footage, type of renovation, structural changes), it is difficult to definitively benchmark. However, for a significant institutional building renovation, this figure is not inherently excessive. A comparison to similar projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar building types and renovation scopes would be necessary for a more precise value assessment. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor bears more risk, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids to account for unforeseen issues.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' indicating that proposals were solicited from all eligible responsible sources. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment for this type of construction project. A higher number of bidders generally correlates with better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices through market forces. The participation of multiple bidders suggests that the government received a range of pricing options, increasing the likelihood of securing a cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army personnel and operations that will utilize the renovated Building 20. The services delivered include comprehensive renovation of a building, likely encompassing structural, mechanical, electrical, and aesthetic upgrades. The geographic impact is localized to the facility where Building 20 is situated, likely a military installation in New York. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, project managers, and related trades during the renovation period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep or change orders on a multi-year renovation project, which could increase costs beyond the initial $15.4 million.
The firm fixed-price contract, while beneficial for cost control, may lead to higher initial bids to mitigate contractor risk.
Long project duration increases the risk of unforeseen site conditions or material price fluctuations impacting the budget.
Limited information on the specific nature of the renovation makes it difficult to assess if the allocated funds are sufficient for the intended scope.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
The presence of 5 bidders suggests sufficient market interest and a competitive landscape.
The contract is with a single entity, Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc., implying a clear point of accountability.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220), a significant segment of the construction industry. This sector encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings such as office buildings, warehouses, and public facilities. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade government infrastructure. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to the average cost per square foot for similar renovations of government facilities, considering factors like age of the building, complexity of systems, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This means the contract was not exclusively reserved for small businesses. While Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc. may be a large business, the analysis does not preclude the possibility of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. Further investigation into the contractor's subcontracting plan would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement and its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified renovation within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, allowing for general oversight. Specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on whether the Army's IG has purview over this particular type of construction project or if specific fraud or waste concerns arise.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Renovations
Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Building Construction Services

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep on long-term renovation projects.
Ambiguity in contract award description ('exclusion of sources' with 'full and open competition').
Lack of detailed performance metrics or project status updates.
Need for benchmarking against similar federal construction projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.4 million to INTERCONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING INC. RENOVATION OF BUILDING 20

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTERCONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING 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 $15.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-10-17. End: 2026-06-20.

What is the track record of Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in building renovations?

A review of federal contract databases would be necessary to assess Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc.'s track record. Key metrics to examine would include the number of previous federal awards, their total value, the types of projects undertaken (specifically renovations), performance ratings (if available), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Understanding their past performance provides insight into their capacity, reliability, and potential risks associated with awarding them this new contract. For instance, a history of successful, on-time, and within-budget renovations would be a positive indicator, while frequent issues could raise concerns about their ability to manage this $15.4 million project effectively.

How does the $15.4 million contract value compare to similar building renovation projects undertaken by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

To benchmark the $15.4 million contract value, a comparative analysis of similar federal building renovation projects is required. This would involve identifying contracts with comparable scope (e.g., square footage, type of renovation - interior, exterior, system upgrades), building type (e.g., office, barracks, specialized facility), and geographic location. Data points such as cost per square foot, duration, and final contract value would be crucial. For example, if similar renovations in the same region cost between $10 million and $20 million, then $15.4 million would appear reasonable. Conversely, if comparable projects were completed for significantly less, it might suggest potential overpricing or a more complex scope for this specific contract.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this firm fixed-price contract for a multi-year renovation project?

The primary risk indicator for this firm fixed-price contract, especially given its duration (October 2022 to June 2026), is the potential for scope creep and unforeseen conditions. While the fixed price aims to cap costs, extensive renovations often encounter unexpected issues (e.g., asbestos, structural problems, outdated systems not initially identified). Change orders, though intended to address necessary deviations, can significantly increase the total contract cost. Another risk is contractor performance; if the contractor struggles with project management, quality control, or labor availability, delays and cost overruns (even with a fixed price, through claims or disputes) can occur. Material price volatility over a multi-year period also poses a risk, potentially leading to requests for equitable adjustments if not adequately addressed in the contract.

What does the level of competition (5 bidders) suggest about the effectiveness of the procurement process and potential value for taxpayers?

Having 5 bidders for this contract suggests a reasonably competitive procurement process. A higher number of bidders generally indicates that the market is sufficiently interested and that the solicitation was accessible and well-defined. This level of competition typically leads to better price discovery, as contractors are incentivized to offer competitive bids to win the contract. For taxpayers, this means there is a greater likelihood that the government secured a fair market price for the renovation services. However, the 'effectiveness' also depends on the quality of the bids received and the evaluation criteria used. If the lowest bid was significantly higher than expected or if technical proposals varied widely in quality, it might indicate issues with the solicitation or the contractor pool's understanding of the requirements.

Are there any historical spending patterns with Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc. or for similar building renovations by the Department of the Army that warrant attention?

Analyzing historical spending patterns is crucial for context. This involves examining previous contracts awarded to Intercontinental Construction Contracting Inc. by the Department of the Army and other federal agencies. Key questions include: Have they consistently won contracts of this size and type? What was their performance history on those contracts? Have there been significant cost increases or delays? Additionally, looking at the Department of the Army's overall spending on building renovations over the past several years can reveal trends in project costs, contract types, and average durations. Significant deviations from these historical patterns for this specific contract—either in terms of cost, duration, or competition level—could signal a need for closer scrutiny.

What are the potential implications of the 'exclusion of sources' clause in the 'full and open competition' award?

The phrase 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is somewhat contradictory and requires clarification. Typically, 'full and open competition' means soliciting offers from all responsible sources and awarding to the responsible source that provides the best value. 'Exclusion of sources' usually implies a justification for limiting competition, such as a sole-source award or a small business set-aside. If this contract truly underwent full and open competition, the 'exclusion of sources' might refer to a specific, documented reason why certain potential offerors were ineligible (e.g., past performance issues, security concerns, or specific technical requirements they couldn't meet). Without further details on the justification for exclusion, it raises a flag that warrants investigation to ensure fair competition was maintained and that the exclusion was legitimate and properly documented.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912DS22B0025

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 180 LEXINGTON AVE 2ND FL, PASSAIC, NJ, 07055

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,220,096

Exercised Options: $15,387,953

Current Obligation: $15,387,953

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline