Department of Defense contract for range complex modernization awarded to Apollo Inc. for over $23.5 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,515,074 ($23.5M)

Contractor: Apollo Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2012-07-18

Contract Duration: 1,022 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MODERNIZE AN EXISTING MULTIPURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX (LIGHT) TO A MODIFIED DIGITAL MULTI-PURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX THAT INCLUDES ADDING A MANEUVER LANE AND URBAN OPERATION ENGAGEMENTS.

Place of Performance

Location: YAKIMA, YAKIMA County, WASHINGTON, 98901

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.5 million to APOLLO INC for work described as: MODERNIZE AN EXISTING MULTIPURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX (LIGHT) TO A MODIFIED DIGITAL MULTI-PURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX THAT INCLUDES ADDING A MANEUVER LANE AND URBAN OPERATION ENGAGEMENTS. Key points: 1. The contract aims to upgrade existing facilities, indicating a need for enhanced training capabilities. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests a defined scope and cost control by the government. 3. The duration of the contract (over 1000 days) points to a significant, multi-year undertaking. 4. The project involves construction, aligning with the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code. 5. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of approximately $23.5 million for modernizing a range complex appears reasonable given the scope of work, which includes adding a maneuver lane and urban operation engagements. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale construction and modernization projects for military training facilities is challenging without more specific details on the technological and structural upgrades involved. However, the firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the government has negotiated a set price, which can be advantageous for cost predictability. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per functional upgrade against industry standards for similar military infrastructure projects.

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. With four bidders participating, the competition level appears adequate, suggesting that the Department of the Army sought multiple proposals to ensure a competitive price. The presence of multiple bidders generally contributes to price discovery and can lead to more favorable terms for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process likely resulted in a more competitive bid, potentially saving taxpayer dollars by driving down the final contract price. The participation of four bidders suggests that the market was sufficiently engaged, providing the government with options and leverage.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are military personnel who will gain access to a modernized training facility, enhancing their readiness and operational effectiveness. The services delivered include construction and modernization of a multipurpose range complex, crucial for realistic combat scenario training. The geographic impact is localized to the facility where the range complex is located, likely within a military installation. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the modernization effort.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
The long duration of the contract could lead to scope creep or changes in military requirements over time.
Dependence on specific construction materials and labor availability could impact project timelines.
Ensuring the modernized facility meets evolving training needs and technological advancements.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, likely leading to a fair price.
The modernization aims to improve training capabilities, directly supporting military readiness.
The project involves established construction practices, reducing technical risk.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The market for military construction and facility modernization is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade aging infrastructure and adapt to new operational requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects, such as barracks, training facilities, or operational bases, to assess cost-effectiveness and project timelines within the defense sector.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, and the prime contractor, Apollo Inc., is not specified as a small business. Therefore, the direct impact on small business set-asides is likely minimal. However, Apollo Inc. may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or materials, which would contribute to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified scope within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Facilities
Range and Training Land Program
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for construction delays
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise
Ensuring technology integration meets evolving military needs
Impact of construction on ongoing base operations

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.5 million to APOLLO INC. MODERNIZE AN EXISTING MULTIPURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX (LIGHT) TO A MODIFIED DIGITAL MULTI-PURPOSE RANGE COMPLEX THAT INCLUDES ADDING A MANEUVER LANE AND URBAN OPERATION ENGAGEMENTS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is APOLLO 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 $23.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2012-07-18.

What is the track record of Apollo Inc. in performing similar large-scale construction and modernization contracts for the Department of Defense?

Assessing Apollo Inc.'s track record requires a review of their past performance on similar Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. This would involve examining contract databases for previous awards, looking at contract values, project types (e.g., military construction, facility modernization, range development), and performance ratings. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget completions on comparable projects would indicate a lower performance risk. Conversely, a pattern of delays, cost overruns, or negative performance reviews would raise concerns. Without specific historical data on Apollo Inc.'s performance on similar DoD projects, it is difficult to definitively assess their capability and reliability for this particular range complex modernization.

How does the cost of this range complex modernization compare to similar projects awarded by the Department of Defense in recent years?

To benchmark the cost of this $23.5 million range complex modernization, one would need to identify comparable projects within the Department of Defense (DoD) that involve similar scope, scale, and complexity. This includes looking at contracts for upgrading or building training ranges, maneuver areas, or urban combat simulation facilities. Key comparison metrics could include cost per square foot of constructed area, cost per major functional upgrade (e.g., installation of digital targeting systems, creation of urban terrain features), or total project cost relative to the facility's size and intended use. Factors such as geographic location, labor costs, and the specific technological requirements of the modernization will influence these comparisons. A detailed analysis would involve accessing contract award data and potentially requesting cost breakdowns from the agency to ensure a like-for-like comparison.

What are the primary risks associated with the modernization of a multipurpose range complex, and how are they mitigated in this contract?

The primary risks associated with modernizing a multipurpose range complex include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., environmental hazards, subsurface obstructions), potential for scope creep as requirements evolve, integration challenges with new technologies, and the impact of construction activities on ongoing military operations. This contract, being a firm-fixed-price (FFP) award, inherently shifts much of the cost risk to the contractor, Apollo Inc. Mitigation strategies would typically involve thorough site investigations prior to award, detailed technical specifications to minimize scope ambiguity, robust project management by the government's contracting officer's representative (COR), and phased construction schedules to limit disruption. The full and open competition also helps mitigate risk by selecting a contractor with a proven ability to manage such projects effectively.

What is the expected impact of this modernization on the training effectiveness and readiness of the military units that will utilize the range complex?

The modernization of the range complex is expected to significantly enhance training effectiveness and military readiness. By adding a maneuver lane and urban operation engagements, the facility will provide a more realistic and versatile training environment. This allows units to practice complex tactical maneuvers, counter-insurgency operations, and close-quarters combat scenarios that more closely mirror real-world challenges. Improved training fidelity leads to better skill development, enhanced decision-making under pressure, and increased unit cohesion. Ultimately, this translates to a higher state of readiness, ensuring that military personnel are better prepared for deployment and mission success.

How has spending on range complex modernization by the Department of the Army evolved over the past five fiscal years?

Analyzing the evolution of spending on range complex modernization by the Department of the Army over the past five fiscal years would require accessing historical budget and contract award data. This would involve tracking the total obligated amounts for contracts categorized under military construction, facility upgrades, and training range development. Trends might indicate an increasing or decreasing emphasis on such investments, potentially influenced by geopolitical factors, changes in military doctrine, or the aging of existing infrastructure. For instance, a surge in spending could signal a strategic push to modernize training capabilities, while a decline might suggest a focus on other priorities or a period of sufficient existing capacity. Specific figures would be needed to confirm these potential trends.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912DW09R0023

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1201 W COLUMBIA DR, KENNEWICK, WA, 04

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,515,074

Exercised Options: $23,515,074

Current Obligation: $23,515,074

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline