CDM Constructors Inc. awarded $2.9M for runway repair, highlighting infrastructure needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,906,318 ($2.9M)

Contractor: CDM Constructors Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-07-23

End Date: 2025-10-13

Contract Duration: 82 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: RUNWAY REPAIR FOR SITE 20162

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $2.9 million to CDM CONSTRUCTORS INC. for work described as: RUNWAY REPAIR FOR SITE 20162 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized runway repair services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Short performance period indicates a focused scope of work. 4. Fixed-price contract shifts risk to the contractor. 5. This award falls within the broader category of infrastructure development.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $2.9 million for runway repair seems aligned with industry standards for such specialized infrastructure projects. Given the fixed-price nature, the government has a clear understanding of the total cost upfront, assuming no significant change orders. Benchmarking against similar runway repair contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment, but the initial figures do not raise immediate concerns.

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 two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, full and open competition generally promotes a fair marketplace and allows the government to select the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more favorable pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its operational readiness, ensuring safe and functional runways. Services delivered include essential repair and maintenance of critical aviation infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation where Site 20162 is located. Workforce implications include employment for skilled construction labor during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Potential for scope creep if unforeseen subsurface issues arise during repair.
  • Dependence on contractor's ability to meet the tight deadline without compromising quality.

Positive Signals

  • Fixed-price contract structure limits cost overruns for the government.
  • Short performance duration suggests a well-defined and manageable project scope.
  • Awarded to CDM Constructors Inc., a known entity in the construction sector.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on heavy and civil engineering construction, including highways, streets, and bridges. The market for military infrastructure repair is substantial, driven by the need to maintain aging facilities and ensure operational readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks for runway and airfield maintenance can vary widely based on the extent of damage and specific repair requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless CDM Constructors Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses for specialized services or materials.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring completion to specifications. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

  • Military Base Infrastructure Maintenance
  • Airfield Pavement Repair
  • Federal Construction Contracts
  • Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

  • Limited competition may impact price optimization.
  • Fixed-price contract risk requires diligent oversight to ensure quality.

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, runway-repair, infrastructure, fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, highway-street-and-bridge-construction

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $2.9 million to CDM CONSTRUCTORS INC.. RUNWAY REPAIR FOR SITE 20162

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CDM CONSTRUCTORS 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 $2.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-23. End: 2025-10-13.

What is the track record of CDM Constructors Inc. on similar federal contracts, particularly those involving airfield infrastructure?

A review of federal contract databases would be necessary to fully assess CDM Constructors Inc.'s track record. Information regarding past performance, including successful completion of similar runway or airfield repair projects, adherence to schedules, and quality of work, is crucial. Examining their history with the Department of the Army or other federal agencies can provide insights into their reliability and expertise. Any past issues with contract performance, disputes, or performance deficiencies would be significant indicators of potential risk for this current award. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their suitability beyond the general information available.

How does the awarded amount of $2.9 million compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar runway repair projects of this scope?

Benchmarking this $2.9 million award against similar runway repair projects requires detailed analysis of project scope, location, specific repair needs (e.g., pavement type, extent of damage, subsurface conditions), and prevailing market rates at the time and location of the contract. The provided data indicates a fixed-price contract with a duration of 82 days, suggesting a defined scope. If the runway repair involves standard resurfacing or patching of a moderate-sized area, $2.9 million might be within a reasonable range. However, if it entails extensive structural repairs, complex drainage work, or specialized materials, the cost could be considered high or low depending on the specifics. A thorough comparison would involve accessing data on comparable contracts awarded by the DoD or other agencies for similar airfield infrastructure work.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, considering its fixed-price nature and short performance period?

The primary risk indicator for this fixed-price contract is the potential for the contractor, CDM Constructors Inc., to cut corners on quality or materials to maintain profitability, especially given the 82-day performance period which necessitates efficient execution. While the fixed price shifts cost risk to the contractor, it can increase the risk of performance issues if the contractor underestimates the complexity or encounters unforeseen problems. The short duration also implies a tight schedule, increasing the risk of delays if the contractor faces logistical challenges, labor shortages, or weather disruptions. The government's risk lies in ensuring the contractor delivers the required quality and completes the work within the specified timeframe and budget, necessitating robust oversight.

What does the level of competition (2 bidders) suggest about the effectiveness of the 'full and open' solicitation process for this particular project?

Having only two bidders in a 'full and open' competition for this $2.9 million runway repair contract suggests that while the process was open, the market for specialized contractors capable of undertaking this specific type of work might be limited, or perhaps the project's scope and location were not widely appealing. While two bidders indicate some level of competition, a higher number typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially better value for the government. This scenario could imply that the government secured a competitive price given the available options, but it also raises questions about whether the solicitation effectively reached all potential qualified bidders or if there are inherent market constraints for such projects.

How does this contract align with the Department of the Army's broader infrastructure modernization or maintenance strategies?

This contract for runway repair directly aligns with the Department of the Army's fundamental need to maintain and modernize its infrastructure to ensure operational readiness and safety. Airfields are critical assets for aviation units, and their upkeep is paramount. Such repair projects contribute to the longevity of existing facilities, preventing more costly replacements in the future and ensuring that aircraft can operate safely. This specific award likely fits into a larger, ongoing program of infrastructure maintenance and upgrades across various Army installations, reflecting a commitment to preserving essential operational capabilities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ConstructionHighway, Street, and Bridge ConstructionHighway, Street, and Bridge Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIESCONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912ER25R2005

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 75 STATE ST STE 701, BOSTON, MA, 02109

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,906,318

Exercised Options: $2,906,318

Current Obligation: $2,906,318

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912GB24D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2025-07-23

Current End Date: 2025-10-13

Potential End Date: 2025-10-13 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2026-03-03

More Contracts from CDM Constructors Inc.

View all CDM Constructors Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending