James Talcott Construction awarded $13.2M for Malmstrom AFB fitness center, completed in 2010

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,215,573 ($13.2M)

Contractor: James Talcott Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-29

End Date: 2010-01-08

Contract Duration: 1,197 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ALL WORK TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER AT MALMSTROM AFB, MONTANA

Place of Performance

Location: MALMSTROM AFB, CASCADE County, MONTANA, 59402

State: Montana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.2 million to JAMES TALCOTT CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: ALL WORK TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER AT MALMSTROM AFB, MONTANA Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract was a firm-fixed-price type, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. Project duration was 1197 days, indicating a significant construction timeline. 4. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the DoD. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses. 7. The project was located in Montana (MT).

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $13.2 million for a physical fitness center at Malmstrom AFB appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity, considering it was awarded in 2006. Without specific benchmarks for military fitness center construction costs from that era, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price contract structure suggests that the initial price was negotiated with the expectation of contractor cost control.

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 a bid. The presence of 5 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing, but the specific market conditions and the complexity of the project also influence bidder participation.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and encourage efficiency from contractors.

Public Impact

Military personnel at Malmstrom Air Force Base will benefit from a new physical fitness center. The project involved the design and construction of a physical fitness facility. The geographic impact is localized to Malmstrom AFB in Montana. The construction activities likely supported local employment in the construction sector during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction issues arose, though mitigated by firm-fixed-price.
Delays in construction could impact the availability of the facility for service members.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets military standards is crucial for long-term usability.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition likely resulted in a competitive bid.
Project completion within the specified duration (1197 days) indicates successful project management.
The facility directly supports the morale and readiness of military personnel.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220). This sector encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings such as recreational facilities. The market for military construction is a specialized segment within this broader industry, often characterized by specific security, logistical, and regulatory requirements. Benchmarking against similar military facility projects would provide a more precise comparison, but the $13.2 million award suggests a substantial project.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This means the prime contract was open to all eligible firms, regardless of size. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests that either the contracting agency did not prioritize it for this specific project, or that larger firms were deemed more capable or competitive for this particular construction effort.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would likely have been in place to monitor construction progress and adherence to specifications. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, which record award details. Inspector General involvement would be triggered by specific allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
Air Force Base Infrastructure
Physical Fitness Centers
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction issues arose.
Risk of construction delays impacting facility availability.
Ensuring long-term durability and quality of the constructed facility.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.2 million to JAMES TALCOTT CONSTRUCTION, INC.. ALL WORK TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER AT MALMSTROM AFB, MONTANA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JAMES TALCOTT CONSTRUCTION, 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 $13.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-29. End: 2010-01-08.

What was the contractor's track record with similar federal construction projects prior to this award?

Assessing James Talcott Construction, Inc.'s track record prior to the 2006 award requires access to historical contract data beyond the scope of this single award. A comprehensive review would involve examining their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving military or institutional building construction. Key indicators would include on-time completion rates, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any past performance issues or disputes. Without this historical data, it's difficult to definitively assess their suitability and experience for a project of this magnitude.

How does the final cost compare to the initial awarded amount, and were there significant change orders?

The provided data indicates an awarded amount of $13,215,573. However, it does not specify the final cost or detail any change orders that may have occurred during the project's execution from 2006 to 2010. Firm-fixed-price contracts aim to cap costs, but unforeseen circumstances during construction can necessitate modifications. A thorough analysis would require examining the contract's modification history to determine if the final cost deviated from the initial award and the reasons for any such deviations, such as scope changes or unforeseen site conditions.

What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation phase, and how were they mitigated?

Specific risks identified during the solicitation phase are not detailed in the provided data. However, typical risks for a large-scale construction project like a fitness center include potential delays due to weather, material availability, labor shortages, or unforeseen site conditions. The firm-fixed-price contract structure inherently mitigates financial risk for the government by placing the burden of cost overruns on the contractor. Mitigation strategies for schedule and performance risks would likely involve detailed project management plans, robust quality assurance, and clear communication protocols outlined in the contract.

How effective was the competition in driving down the price for this specific project?

The contract was awarded under full and open competition with 5 bids received. While 5 bidders suggest a degree of competition, the effectiveness in driving down the price is relative. To assess this, one would need to compare the awarded price against a baseline, such as the government's estimate or the prices of similar projects awarded around the same time. A higher number of bids generally correlates with more aggressive pricing. Without comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state how much the price was 'driven down' beyond the inherent benefits of having multiple offers.

What is the historical spending trend for physical fitness centers at Air Force bases?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for physical fitness centers at Air Force bases requires aggregating data across numerous contracts over several years. This specific award of $13.2 million in 2006-2010 provides a single data point. To establish a trend, one would need to examine the average cost per square foot, the range of contract values, and the frequency of such awards across different bases and time periods. Factors like inflation, evolving design standards, and base-specific requirements would influence these trends. This single contract does not provide sufficient data to establish a meaningful historical spending trend.

Were there any performance issues or contract disputes reported for this project?

The provided data does not include information regarding performance issues or contract disputes related to this specific contract awarded to James Talcott Construction, Inc. Such details are typically found in contract performance reports or through legal/dispute resolution records, which are not part of the basic award information. A lack of reported disputes does not necessarily guarantee flawless performance, but it suggests that any issues were likely resolved without escalating to formal disputes or significant negative performance evaluations.

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: W912DW06R0025

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4415 RIVER DR N, GREAT FALLS, MT, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,215,573

Exercised Options: $13,215,573

Current Obligation: $13,215,573

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline