DoD awards $13.8M construction contract for S-257 in Florida, raising questions about value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,762,793 ($13.8M)

Contractor: Cody, Herve

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-31

End Date: 2010-08-27

Contract Duration: 1,123 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF S-257

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32901

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.8 million to CODY, HERVE for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF S-257 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for heavy civil engineering construction in Florida. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 1123 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. No small business set-aside was applied to this contract. 6. The contract was awarded to Cody, Herve, a single entity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $13.8 million for 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' in Florida falls within a typical range for projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar large-scale civil engineering projects in the region would be necessary for a definitive value assessment. However, without specific details on the scope of 'S-257', a precise comparison is challenging. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the primary cost risk, which can be a positive indicator of value if the final price is competitive.

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. With 7 bidders participating, the level of competition appears healthy, which typically drives more competitive pricing. The presence of multiple bids suggests that the government had a reasonable opportunity to secure a fair market price for the construction services.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition with multiple bidders is generally favorable for taxpayers, as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a competitive price and reduces the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, which will receive the completed construction project. The project involves heavy and civil engineering construction, likely related to infrastructure or facilities. The geographic impact is localized to Florida, where the construction will take place. The contract supports jobs within the construction sector in Florida.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on 'S-257' makes it difficult to fully assess the scope and potential risks.
The long contract duration (1123 days) could present risks related to material cost fluctuations or unforeseen site conditions.
While competition was present, the specific performance history of the awarded contractor, Cody, Herve, is not detailed here.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with 7 bidders, indicating a competitive process.
Firm fixed-price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract is for a specific construction need within the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of infrastructure projects. The market for such services is significant, driven by both public and private sector demand for roads, bridges, utilities, and other large-scale construction. Federal spending in this sector is often substantial, supporting national infrastructure development and military readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific type and scale of the S-257 project.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on obtaining the best value through open competition, rather than specifically targeting small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular award, as it was not designed to funnel work to smaller firms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance with contract terms are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally provided through contract databases like FPDS, which report award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Infrastructure Projects
Heavy Civil Engineering
Department of Defense Contracts
Federal Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or unforeseen issues.
Lack of detailed project scope information hinders full value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.8 million to CODY, HERVE. CONSTRUCTION OF S-257

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CODY, HERVE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-31. End: 2010-08-27.

What is the specific nature and scope of the 'S-257' project?

The provided data identifies the contract as 'CONSTRUCTION OF S-257' within the 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' category (NAICS 237990). However, the specific details of what 'S-257' entails are not included in the basic award information. This could range from building a specific facility, upgrading infrastructure, or undertaking a specialized civil engineering task for the Department of the Army. Without further documentation or project descriptions, the exact nature of the construction remains undefined. Understanding the scope is crucial for a comprehensive assessment of the contract's value, risks, and overall necessity.

How does the awarded price of $13.8 million compare to similar construction projects in Florida?

Benchmarking the $13.8 million award requires comparing it to similar 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' projects undertaken in Florida around the 2007-2010 contract period. Factors such as project scale, complexity, specific engineering requirements, and prevailing market conditions (labor, materials) would need to be matched. Given the 7 bidders and full and open competition, the price is presumed to be market-driven. However, without access to a database of comparable projects with detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment relative to market rates is difficult. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor bore significant cost risk, which can be a positive sign if the final price was competitive.

What is the track record and past performance of the contractor, Cody, Herve?

The provided data lists 'CODY, HERVE' as the contractor awarded the $13.8 million construction contract. However, it does not include information regarding their past performance, financial stability, or experience with similar projects. A thorough assessment would require reviewing their contract history, any past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and their capacity to successfully execute a project of this duration and scale. Without this information, it's challenging to fully evaluate the risk associated with this specific contractor.

What are the potential risks associated with a 1123-day construction contract?

A contract duration of 1123 days (approximately 3 years) for construction presents several potential risks. These include: 1) Material cost escalation: Prices for raw materials and labor can fluctuate significantly over a multi-year period, potentially impacting the contractor's profitability if not adequately accounted for in the fixed price. 2) Unforeseen site conditions: Discovering unexpected geological issues, environmental hazards, or existing infrastructure conflicts can lead to delays and increased costs. 3) Design changes or scope creep: Modifications to the original project scope during execution can disrupt timelines and budgets. 4) Contractor performance degradation: Long projects can sometimes see a decline in contractor focus or resource allocation over time. The firm fixed-price structure mitigates some of these risks for the government, but delays or contractor failure could still impact project completion.

How does the $13.8M total contract value compare to annual federal spending in heavy civil engineering construction?

The $13.8 million awarded for the S-257 construction project represents a single award within the broader federal spending landscape for heavy civil engineering. Federal spending in this sector is substantial, encompassing a wide array of projects including military base infrastructure, transportation networks (roads, bridges, airports), water resource management, and other public works. Annually, federal obligations for heavy and civil engineering construction can reach tens of billions of dollars. Therefore, this single contract, while significant for the contractor and the specific project, is a relatively small component of the overall federal investment in this sector. Its impact on aggregate spending trends would be negligible.

Were there any specific performance metrics or milestones defined for this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract type is 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' and specifies a start and end date, along with a duration of 1123 days. However, it does not detail specific performance metrics, key performance indicators (KPIs), or intermediate milestones that the contractor was required to meet. In firm fixed-price contracts, payment is typically tied to the completion of the project or defined phases. While the contract likely includes clauses for timely completion and adherence to specifications, the absence of explicit performance metrics in the summary data makes it difficult to assess how performance was quantitatively measured and managed throughout the project lifecycle.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912EP07B0011

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: HZE

Contractor Details

Address: OFF MAIN ST, ROBBINSVILLE, NC, 28771

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,762,793

Exercised Options: $13,762,793

Current Obligation: $13,762,793

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline