DoD's $12.5M DCAS contract awarded in 2007 shows long-term spending in heavy civil engineering

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,465,059 ($12.5M)

Contractor: Stan Kirklan

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-24

End Date: 2009-09-18

Contract Duration: 725 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: B4L1230 DEMONSTRATION CHANNEL ALIGNMENT STRUCTURE (DCAS)

Place of Performance

Location: LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE County, LOUISIANA, 70506

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.5 million to STAN KIRKLAN for work described as: B4L1230 DEMONSTRATION CHANNEL ALIGNMENT STRUCTURE (DCAS) Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 2. Fixed-price contract type indicates a defined scope and cost structure. 3. The contract duration of 725 days points to a significant project timeline. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a focus on infrastructure or operational support. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 places this in heavy and civil engineering construction. 6. The contract was awarded in Louisiana, potentially indicating a specific geographic need or project location.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered. The fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty for the government, but the total award amount of approximately $12.5 million over two years needs to be assessed against the scope of the 'Demonstration Channel Alignment Structure' project. Without comparable projects or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the duration and fixed price are generally positive indicators.

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 implies that while the competition was initially broad, certain sources were later excluded. This could be due to specific technical requirements or security concerns. The fact that it was open competition initially suggests a desire for broad market participation, but the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the rationale. The number of bidders is not specified, which limits a full assessment of price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower prices. However, the exclusion of sources may have limited the ultimate number of competitive bids, potentially impacting the best possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army and its operational readiness, through the construction or enhancement of critical infrastructure. The services delivered involve heavy and civil engineering construction, specifically related to a 'Demonstration Channel Alignment Structure'. The geographic impact is localized to Louisiana, where the contract was awarded. Workforce implications would include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the civil engineering sector within Louisiana.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exclusion of sources after initial full and open competition raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential fairness.
Lack of specific details on the 'Demonstration Channel Alignment Structure' makes it difficult to fully assess the project's necessity and value.
The fixed-price contract type, while offering cost certainty, could lead to cost overruns if the scope was not perfectly defined or if unforeseen issues arose.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a competitive process, indicating an effort to secure the best possible offer.
The fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost control for the government.
The contract duration suggests a substantial and potentially important project for the Army.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector (NAICS 237990), which includes establishments primarily engaged in the construction or alteration of infrastructure projects such as highways, streets, bridges, tunnels, and waterways. Spending in this sector for the Department of Defense is often tied to military base infrastructure, operational support facilities, or projects related to national security logistics. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale civil engineering projects awarded by government agencies, considering factors like project complexity, location, and duration.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false) nor was there a subcontracting goal explicitly mentioned (sb: false). This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best technical and price solution from the broader market. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract appears minimal, though larger prime contractors may engage small businesses as subcontractors if it aligns with their project execution strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be enforced through contract clauses, performance reviews, and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed project-specific oversight reports are not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization
Federal Civil Engineering Contracts
Infrastructure Improvement Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Uncertainty in scope definition for 'demonstration' projects.
Risk of cost overruns in fixed-price contracts for novel work.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.5 million to STAN KIRKLAN. B4L1230 DEMONSTRATION CHANNEL ALIGNMENT STRUCTURE (DCAS)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STAN KIRKLAN.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-24. End: 2009-09-18.

What was the specific nature and purpose of the 'Demonstration Channel Alignment Structure' (DCAS)?

The 'Demonstration Channel Alignment Structure' (DCAS) likely refers to a project aimed at improving or demonstrating a method for aligning or managing a channel, possibly for navigation, water management, or environmental purposes. Given the 'Demonstration' aspect, it could have been a pilot project to test new construction techniques, materials, or alignment strategies before wider implementation. The 'Channel Alignment' suggests work related to waterways, harbors, or potentially even air traffic control structures, though the NAICS code points strongly towards civil engineering. Without access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), the precise technical objectives and deliverables remain unspecified, making it difficult to ascertain the project's full scope and intended outcomes.

How did the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process affect the final contract price and selection?

The phrase 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that the initial solicitation was open to all responsible sources, but subsequently, certain potential bidders were excluded from the final competition phase. The reasons for exclusion could range from failure to meet specific technical qualifications, security requirements, past performance issues, or even organizational conflicts of interest. The impact on the final contract price is complex; while excluding bidders might reduce the number of offers, it doesn't automatically mean a higher price if the remaining bidders are highly competitive. However, it does limit the potential for price reduction that could arise from a larger pool of competing firms. The selection process would have prioritized the offer that best met the government's criteria among the remaining eligible sources.

What is the typical cost range for similar heavy and civil engineering construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army?

The cost range for heavy and civil engineering construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army can vary dramatically based on scale, complexity, location, and specific requirements. Projects can range from millions to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars. For instance, airfield construction, major facility upgrades, or extensive infrastructure development on military bases often fall into the tens to hundreds of millions. Smaller projects, like specific structural repairs or localized channel modifications, might be in the single-digit to low double-digit millions, similar to this DCAS contract. Benchmarking requires detailed comparison of project scope, duration, and specific engineering challenges, as well as prevailing market rates for labor and materials in the project's geographic area.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract for a demonstration or potentially novel construction project?

Fixed-price contracts offer cost certainty to the buyer, but they carry inherent risks, especially for demonstration or novel projects. If the scope of work is not precisely defined or if unforeseen technical challenges arise during the demonstration or construction, the contractor may incur significant cost overruns. This could lead to the contractor seeking change orders, potentially increasing the overall cost, or facing financial distress if they absorb the overruns. For demonstration projects, the novelty itself introduces uncertainty in estimating labor, materials, and timelines accurately. This can put pressure on the contractor to either cut corners, potentially compromising quality, or to negotiate additional funding, which negates some of the fixed-price benefit. The government's risk lies in potentially paying a premium upfront to ensure cost certainty, or facing disputes and delays if the contractor struggles with unforeseen complexities.

How does the duration of 725 days (approximately 2 years) impact the assessment of this contract's performance and value?

A contract duration of 725 days, roughly two years, suggests a project of considerable scale and complexity, rather than a short-term service. For a construction project, this timeframe allows for significant work phases, including planning, execution, and potentially testing or demonstration periods. From a value perspective, a longer duration can sometimes indicate a more thorough approach to a complex problem, potentially leading to a more robust and lasting solution. However, it also increases the exposure to market fluctuations (e.g., material costs, labor rates) and potential project delays. Assessing performance over such a period requires ongoing monitoring of milestones, quality control, and adherence to budget. The value is realized if the completed structure or system effectively meets its intended purpose and lasts for its expected lifespan, justifying the investment over the two-year execution period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912EE07B0020

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3562 HWY 44, PAULINA, LA, 70763

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,465,059

Exercised Options: $12,465,059

Current Obligation: $12,465,059

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline