DoD's $12.1M construction contract awarded to Sauer Construction, LLC for building needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,144,300 ($12.1M)

Contractor: Sauer Construction, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-06-27

End Date: 2008-06-27

Contract Duration: 1,096 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28307

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.1 million to SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $12.1 million suggests a significant construction project. 2. Awarded to Sauer Construction, LLC, indicating a specific contractor's role. 3. The contract duration of 1096 days points to a long-term project. 4. Fixed-price contract type implies cost certainty for the government. 5. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 6. The North Carolina location may indicate a regional focus for the project.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12.1 million for commercial and institutional building construction needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess value for money. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's challenging to compare pricing directly. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost predictability for the Department of the Army. The duration of 1096 days (approximately 3 years) is substantial and suggests a complex undertaking.

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 a bid. With 6 bidders, this suggests a moderate level of competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing, but the specific nature of the construction project and the qualifications required could influence the number of interested parties.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the constructed facilities. The contract delivers essential commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is centered in North Carolina, where the construction will take place. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
Risk of delays impacting military readiness or operational needs if the project timeline is not met.
Quality control concerns are inherent in any large construction project, requiring diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract structure offers budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a potentially robust selection process, aiming for best value.
The substantial contract value may indicate a project of significant importance and scope.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 confirms this. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of construction services, undertaking projects ranging from barracks and training facilities to administrative buildings and infrastructure. Benchmarking this $12.1 million contract would involve comparing it to other large-scale DoD construction projects or similar commercial builds in terms of cost per square foot, complexity, and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities if Sauer Construction, LLC engages them. Without further information on subcontracting plans, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, large federal construction contracts often create downstream opportunities for specialized small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring progress, quality, and compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are built into the contract through performance clauses and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which record award details. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Facilities
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns
Risk of schedule delays
Quality control concerns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.1 million to SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-06-27. End: 2008-06-27.

What specific type of commercial or institutional building was constructed under this contract, and what were its key features?

The provided data identifies the contract under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) but does not specify the exact type of building. It could range from administrative offices, barracks, training facilities, or support structures. Key features would depend on the building's purpose, such as size (square footage), capacity, specialized equipment integration, or security requirements. Without more detailed project documentation, the specific nature and features of the constructed facility remain unknown. Further investigation into the contract award details or associated project descriptions would be necessary to ascertain these specifics.

How does the $12.1 million contract value compare to the average cost of similar construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $12.1 million contract value requires context regarding the scope and complexity of the project. The Department of the Army undertakes a wide variety of construction projects, from small renovations to large-scale new builds. A $12.1 million project is substantial, likely representing a significant facility. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against similar projects in terms of building type (e.g., barracks vs. research facility), size (square footage), location, and the specific construction challenges involved. Without these comparative data points, it's difficult to definitively state whether $12.1 million represents a high, low, or average cost for a project of this nature within the DoD.

What were the primary risks identified during the bidding process for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not detail the specific risks identified during the bidding process. However, for a large construction contract like this, common risks often include potential cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, labor shortages, or design changes. Schedule delays are also a significant risk, potentially impacting operational readiness. Mitigation strategies typically involve thorough site investigations, detailed cost estimations, robust contract clauses (like fixed-price with escalation clauses if applicable, though this is firm fixed price), contingency planning, and strong project management oversight. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract suggests the contractor assumed a significant portion of the cost risk.

What is the track record of Sauer Construction, LLC in completing federal construction contracts of similar size and scope?

Information on Sauer Construction, LLC's specific track record with federal contracts of similar size and scope is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance, one would need to examine their past federal contract awards, including their value, duration, and performance ratings (if available). A review of contract databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or SAM.gov could reveal their history. Factors to consider would include on-time completion, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Without this specific performance history, it's difficult to evaluate their reliability for this particular project.

How has spending on commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army trended over the past five years?

The provided data only pertains to a single contract award. To analyze historical spending trends for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army, a broader dataset covering multiple years and contracts would be required. This would involve aggregating spending data across all relevant NAICS codes (like 236220) awarded by the Army over a specified period. Such an analysis would reveal patterns in investment, identify periods of increased or decreased activity, and potentially highlight shifts in priorities or budget allocations within the Army's construction programs. This single data point does not provide sufficient information for trend analysis.

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: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Sauer Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 062594069)

Address: 11223 PHILLIPS PARKWAY DR, JACKSONVILLE, FL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline