DOD's $14.5M construction contract awarded to ACC Construction Co. for building projects

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,533,382 ($14.5M)

Contractor: ACC Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-02-03

End Date: 2007-11-07

Contract Duration: 1,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: SAVANNAH, CHATHAM County, GEORGIA, 31405

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.5 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the contract duration and scope. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a fully competed contract, potentially driving better pricing. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract type mitigating cost overrun risks. 4. Performance context suggests a focus on commercial and institutional building construction. 5. Sector positioning is within the Defense construction domain, supporting military infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $14.5 million over approximately 3 years (1007 days) for commercial and institutional building construction appears within a reasonable range for large-scale projects. Benchmarking against similar large construction contracts would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the initial bid was expected to cover all costs, offering predictability for the government.

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 bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially lead to lower prices, two bids still provide a basis for price comparison and selection.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to offer their best prices, leading to potentially more cost-effective outcomes.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will utilize the constructed facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is concentrated in the state of Georgia, where the contract was performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the Georgia region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if project requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant duration could lead to dependency.
Construction projects inherently carry risks of delays due to weather, material availability, or unforeseen site conditions.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type limits the government's exposure to cost overruns.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized.
Contract awarded to ACC Construction Co., Inc., a known entity in the construction sector.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction industry, specifically focusing on commercial and institutional buildings. The market for federal construction is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense frequently undertaking large infrastructure projects. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar military construction projects would be necessary for a detailed analysis, but the $14.5 million value suggests a significant undertaking.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. This means the primary contract was likely awarded to a larger firm, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem might be limited unless ACC Construction Co., Inc. actively engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified construction services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction
Federal Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if contractor underestimates expenses.
Risk of delays due to unforeseen site conditions or external factors.
Quality control concerns if contractor prioritizes speed over standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.5 million to ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACC CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-02-03. End: 2007-11-07.

What is the track record of ACC Construction Co., Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

ACC Construction Co., Inc. has a history of performing federal contracts, including those with the Department of Defense. While this specific contract valued at $14.5 million was for building construction, their broader federal portfolio may include various types of construction and renovation projects. Analyzing past performance on similar-sized contracts, adherence to schedules, and quality of work would provide a more comprehensive view of their reliability. Information from contract databases and performance reviews, where available, can shed light on their experience and success rate in meeting government requirements.

How does the $14.5 million award compare to the average cost of similar institutional building projects for the Department of Defense?

The $14.5 million award for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army is a significant sum, indicative of a substantial project. To benchmark this value effectively, it would be necessary to compare it against the average cost of similar projects undertaken by the DOD or other federal agencies over a comparable timeframe. Factors such as project scope (e.g., square footage, complexity of systems, new construction vs. renovation), location, and prevailing market conditions for construction materials and labor in Georgia would influence this comparison. Without specific project details and broader market data, a precise value-for-money assessment relative to peers is challenging, but the amount suggests a project of considerable scale.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a large construction project like this?

The primary risk for the contractor in a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is the potential for cost overruns if actual expenses exceed the agreed-upon price. This can erode profit margins or lead to losses. For the government, the main risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise, although contract specifications and oversight aim to prevent this. Additionally, if the initial price was set too high due to a lack of robust competition or inaccurate cost estimation, the government might overpay. However, FFP contracts are generally favored for their cost certainty for the buyer.

Given the contract duration of 1007 days, what are the implications for project management and oversight?

A contract duration of 1007 days (approximately 2.75 years) for a construction project of this magnitude necessitates robust project management and sustained oversight. The Department of the Army would need dedicated personnel to monitor progress, ensure adherence to the construction schedule, manage any change orders, and verify the quality of work against contract specifications. Long durations increase the potential for scope creep, changes in material costs, and the need for consistent communication between the government and the contractor. Effective oversight is crucial to mitigate risks associated with extended timelines and ensure the project is completed successfully and within budget.

How does the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code inform our understanding of this contract's scope?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction,' specifies the primary business activity for which this contract was awarded. This code covers establishments primarily engaged in the construction or remodeling of nonresidential buildings, such as commercial, industrial, or institutional structures. This implies the project likely involved the building of facilities like offices, warehouses, barracks, training centers, or similar structures for government use, rather than residential housing or specialized infrastructure like roads or bridges. It sets the expectation for the type of construction services procured.

What does the award amount of $14,533,382 suggest about the scale and complexity of the construction project?

An award amount exceeding $14.5 million strongly suggests a large-scale construction project. This figure typically covers significant undertakings such as the construction of new buildings, major renovations, or the development of complex facilities. The scale implies substantial labor, materials, and specialized equipment requirements. The complexity could stem from architectural design, structural engineering needs, integration of advanced building systems (HVAC, electrical, IT infrastructure), or specific security and operational requirements typical of military installations. Such projects demand rigorous planning, execution, and oversight.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 635 NW FRONTAGE RD STE B, AUGUSTA, GA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $189,289

Exercised Options: $189,289

Current Obligation: $14,533,382

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline