DoD awards $10M construction contract for manufacturing lab addition and renovations at Joint Base MDL

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,018,000 ($10.0M)

Contractor: Imperial Construction & Electric Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-07-24

End Date: 2028-07-04

Contract Duration: 1,076 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MANUFACTURING LAB ADDITION B331 B332 AND RENOVATIONS, LAKEHURST, JOINT BASE-MDL, NEW JERSEY

Place of Performance

Location: LAKEHURST, OCEAN County, NEW JERSEY, 08733

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.0 million to IMPERIAL CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRIC INC. for work described as: MANUFACTURING LAB ADDITION B331 B332 AND RENOVATIONS, LAKEHURST, JOINT BASE-MDL, NEW JERSEY Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Imperial Construction & Electric Inc. for a firm-fixed-price definitive contract. 2. Project involves construction of a manufacturing lab addition and renovations at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process. 4. The duration of the contract is approximately 1076 days, spanning from July 2025 to July 2028. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. 6. The base value of the contract is $10,018,000. 7. The contract is not a small business set-aside, and no information is provided on subcontracting plans.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $10 million for a manufacturing lab addition and renovations appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope and complexity. Benchmarking against similar federal construction projects for institutional buildings would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be beneficial for the government if the initial pricing is competitive. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to private sector construction costs for similar facilities, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

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,' which suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for documented reasons. There were 7 bidders for this contract, indicating a healthy level of competition. This number of bidders generally allows for price discovery and encourages competitive pricing, potentially leading to a better outcome for the government compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award, with 7 bidders, suggests that taxpayer dollars are likely being used efficiently. A competitive process helps ensure that the government receives fair market value for the construction services, minimizing the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and its personnel at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, who will gain access to an upgraded manufacturing laboratory. The project will deliver enhanced facilities for manufacturing research, development, and potentially production, supporting military readiness and technological advancement. The geographic impact is localized to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, providing a critical infrastructure upgrade for this military installation. The contract will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within New Jersey and potentially surrounding areas, benefiting skilled trades and related industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand if it limited competition unnecessarily.
Lack of specific details on the scope of renovations makes it difficult to assess potential cost efficiencies or risks.
No information provided on small business participation or subcontracting goals, which could limit opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Multiple bidders (7) indicate a competitive market for these services.
Project supports critical infrastructure for a major military installation.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building construction (NAICS 236220), is a significant part of the federal procurement landscape. Federal agencies frequently contract for the construction and renovation of facilities, including military bases, research labs, and administrative buildings. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms capable of undertaking projects of this scale. This contract fits within the broader category of federal infrastructure development and modernization efforts, aiming to ensure that government facilities are up-to-date and functional.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb: false'. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements or goals for small businesses within the provided data. This suggests that the prime contractor, Imperial Construction & Electric Inc., is not obligated by this contract to subcontract a specific portion of the work to small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award may be limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily fall under the purview of the Department of the Army, which is the specific agency awarding the contract under the Department of Defense. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, allowing for public scrutiny. Specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would typically be with the DoD IG, who can investigate allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to federal contracts.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Federal Building and Facilities Construction
Research and Development Facility Construction
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of cost overruns or quality issues in long-term FFP contracts.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals.
Need for detailed benchmarking to confirm value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.0 million to IMPERIAL CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRIC INC.. MANUFACTURING LAB ADDITION B331 B332 AND RENOVATIONS, LAKEHURST, JOINT BASE-MDL, NEW JERSEY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IMPERIAL CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRIC 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 $10.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-24. End: 2028-07-04.

What is the track record of Imperial Construction & Electric Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

A review of federal contract databases would be necessary to fully assess Imperial Construction & Electric Inc.'s track record. Key metrics to examine would include the number of previous federal contracts awarded, their total value, performance ratings (if available), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Understanding their experience with similar construction projects, especially those on military installations or involving laboratory facilities, would provide insight into their capability to execute this current project successfully. A positive history with the DoD would suggest a lower risk profile for this contract.

How does the awarded price of $10,018,000 compare to similar manufacturing lab construction projects funded by the federal government?

To benchmark the value, one would compare this contract's price against similar federal projects for constructing or renovating manufacturing laboratories or similar institutional buildings. This comparison should consider factors such as square footage, complexity of specialized equipment installation, geographic location (which affects labor and material costs), and the specific year of award. If data from the General Services Administration (GSA) or other defense agencies' construction projects are available, they could serve as benchmarks. A preliminary assessment suggests the price is within a typical range, but detailed comparative analysis is needed for a definitive conclusion on value for money.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a multi-year construction project?

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally favored for shifting cost risk to the contractor, they can introduce other risks. For a multi-year project like this (over 3 years), there's a risk that unforeseen site conditions, material price escalations beyond the contractor's control, or design changes could lead to contractor claims for equitable adjustments, potentially negating the FFP benefit. If the initial price was set too low due to aggressive bidding, the contractor might cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability, requiring diligent government oversight. Conversely, if the price was set too high, the government may have overpaid.

What is the expected impact of this manufacturing lab addition and renovations on the operational effectiveness of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst?

The addition and renovation of a manufacturing laboratory are expected to significantly enhance the operational effectiveness of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst by providing state-of-the-art facilities. This could support advanced manufacturing capabilities relevant to defense needs, potentially improving readiness, enabling faster prototyping of new technologies, or facilitating maintenance and repair operations. An upgraded lab environment can also attract and retain skilled personnel by offering modern tools and workspaces. The specific impact will depend on the lab's intended functions, but generally, such infrastructure improvements are crucial for maintaining a technological edge and supporting the base's mission.

How has federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction (NAICS 236220) trended in recent years, and does this contract align with those trends?

Federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction, categorized under NAICS 236220, has historically been substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade government facilities, including military bases, federal courthouses, and research institutions. Recent trends may show fluctuations based on infrastructure initiatives, defense spending priorities, and economic conditions. This $10 million contract for a manufacturing lab addition aligns with the government's ongoing investment in its infrastructure. Analyzing historical spending data for the Department of Defense and specifically for facility upgrades at major installations would reveal if this award is consistent with or deviates from established spending patterns.

What are the implications of awarding this contract under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' versus standard 'full and open competition'?

Awarding under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' implies that while the solicitation was broadly advertised, certain potential offerors were intentionally excluded based on specific criteria or justifications outlined in the solicitation or preceding documentation. This differs from standard 'full and open competition' where all responsible sources are generally permitted to compete without exclusion. The exclusion might be based on factors like past performance, security requirements, or specific technical capabilities. While it still aims for competition, the exclusion could potentially limit the pool of bidders and, in some cases, might raise questions about whether the exclusion was fully justified and truly served the government's best interest in maximizing competition and achieving the best value.

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

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 51 COMMERCE ST FL 2, SPRINGFIELD, NJ, 07081

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,018,000

Exercised Options: $10,018,000

Current Obligation: $10,018,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline