DoD awards $26M construction contract to Atlantic Skanska, Inc. for Florida project

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,083,033 ($26.1M)

Contractor: Atlantic Skanska, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-23

End Date: 2008-12-30

Contract Duration: 1,194 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE County, FLORIDA, 33034

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.1 million to ATLANTIC SKANSKA, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of heavy civil engineering work. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which can be favorable for the government. 4. The contract duration of nearly four years indicates a significant, long-term construction project. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 points to specialized heavy construction. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $26 million for nearly four years of heavy civil engineering construction is within a reasonable range for projects of this nature. Without specific benchmarks for similar Florida-based Army Corps of Engineers projects, a direct comparison is difficult. However, the fixed-price nature of the award suggests that the government secured a defined cost for the work, which is generally a positive indicator of value.

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 bids. The presence of four bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. A higher number of bidders might typically lead to more aggressive pricing, but four bids can still result in a competitive outcome, especially for specialized work.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to bid, which can drive down costs and ensure the government receives fair market value for its investments.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and potentially military personnel or operations supported by the completed construction. The contract delivers heavy civil engineering construction services, likely involving infrastructure development or upgrades. The project is geographically located in Florida, specifically noted as 'FL'. The contract supports the construction workforce, creating jobs for skilled laborers, engineers, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in heavy civil engineering.
Contractor performance risk associated with a multi-year fixed-price contract.
Dependence on specific Florida-based construction resources and labor availability.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract structure limits government exposure to cost increases.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to an established entity like Atlantic Skanska, Inc. may indicate a track record of capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the heavy and civil engineering construction sector, which includes a wide range of infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, dams, and utilities. The Department of Defense is a significant investor in construction, often requiring specialized engineering and large-scale projects to support its global operations and domestic infrastructure. Benchmarking this specific award against broader construction spending requires detailed analysis of project scope and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Atlantic Skanska, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors depending on their own procurement strategies and the specific needs of the construction project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives (CORs) within the Army Corps of Engineers or relevant command. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract terms, with payments tied to performance milestones. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases, though detailed project specifics might be limited due to security or proprietary concerns.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization
Heavy and Civil Engineering Services
Federal Fixed-Price Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of unforeseen issues.
Fixed-price contracts can incentivize cost-cutting that may affect quality if not closely monitored.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.1 million to ATLANTIC SKANSKA, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ATLANTIC SKANSKA, 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 $26.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-23. End: 2008-12-30.

What is Atlantic Skanska, Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense?

Atlantic Skanska, Inc. has a history of securing contracts with the Department of Defense, as evidenced by this award. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance reviews, any documented disputes or claims, and the successful completion rates of previous DoD contracts. A deeper dive into their portfolio would reveal their experience with similar types of heavy civil engineering projects and their ability to manage large-scale, fixed-price agreements within government parameters. Information on their past performance can often be found in federal procurement databases and through agency performance assessment systems.

How does the $26 million award compare to similar heavy civil engineering contracts awarded by the DoD in Florida?

Comparing the $26 million award to similar heavy civil engineering contracts by the DoD in Florida requires access to a comprehensive database of federal contract awards, filtered by agency, geographic location, and NAICS code (237990). Without this specific data, a direct benchmark is challenging. However, projects of this scale and duration (nearly four years) are typical for significant infrastructure development or upgrades. The fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, and the competition level (four bids) indicates a market where multiple firms are capable of undertaking such work. Generally, larger, more complex projects command higher values, and regional economic factors in Florida could also influence pricing.

What are the primary risks associated with this fixed-price contract for the government?

The primary risk for the government in a fixed-price contract, even with full and open competition, is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if unforeseen challenges arise during the extensive construction period. While the fixed price locks in the cost, it doesn't inherently guarantee the highest quality if the contractor prioritizes cost savings over meticulous execution. Another risk is contractor default or bankruptcy, though less likely with established firms. The government relies heavily on robust oversight and inspection to mitigate these risks and ensure the project meets all specifications and standards.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money in large construction contracts?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money in large federal construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential contractors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. This process encourages innovation and efficiency as contractors strive to offer the best value proposition. However, the effectiveness is contingent on the clarity of the solicitation, the realism of the requirements, and the thoroughness of the evaluation process. For highly specialized or complex projects, the number of capable bidders might be limited, potentially reducing the competitive pressure.

What is the historical spending pattern for NAICS code 237990 by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) by the Department of the Army typically reflect significant investment in infrastructure critical to military readiness and operations. This includes projects like airfields, port facilities, training ranges, utility systems, and roads. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on military construction priorities, modernization initiatives, and national security needs. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and the types of projects most frequently undertaken, providing context for the $26 million award to Atlantic Skanska, Inc.

What are the implications of a nearly four-year contract duration on project management and oversight?

A contract duration of nearly four years (1194 days) for a construction project of this magnitude presents significant implications for project management and oversight. It necessitates sustained commitment from both the contracting agency and the contractor, requiring robust planning, resource allocation, and continuous monitoring. The extended timeline increases the potential for scope creep, changes in requirements, and unforeseen environmental or economic factors that could impact the project. Effective oversight must be adaptive, ensuring that quality control remains high throughout the project lifecycle and that milestones are met consistently to prevent delays and cost overruns.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Skanska AB (UEI: 353937956)

Address: 2030 POWERS FERRY RD SE, ATLANTA, GA, 30339

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline