DOD's $16.3M vehicle maintenance facility contract awarded to The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. for construction services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,293,508 ($16.3M)

Contractor: THE Mason & Hanger Group Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-06-02

End Date: 2008-08-16

Contract Duration: 806 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: VEHICLE MAINT FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: HINESVILLE, LIBERTY County, GEORGIA, 31313

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.3 million to THE MASON & HANGER GROUP INC. for work described as: VEHICLE MAINT FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract value of $16.3 million for a vehicle maintenance facility appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust bidding process that should have yielded competitive pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract type generally transfers risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively. 4. The project duration of approximately 806 days indicates a significant undertaking requiring substantial planning and execution. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense, highlighting its strategic importance. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction, a standard category for such facilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $16.3 million for a vehicle maintenance facility is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for military or large commercial entities would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, given the scope implied by a dedicated vehicle maintenance facility, the price point does not immediately suggest overpayment, especially considering it was awarded through full and open competition.

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. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The presence of two bidders, as indicated by the 'no' field, suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers by ensuring a wide range of offers are considered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Army, which will gain a new or upgraded vehicle maintenance facility. The services delivered include the construction of a facility designed for the maintenance and repair of military vehicles, crucial for operational readiness. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the facility is constructed, likely within a military installation in Georgia, as suggested by the 'sn' field. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and support staff during the construction phase.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness if the facility is critical.
Cost overruns, although mitigated by the firm-fixed-price contract, can still occur due to unforeseen site conditions or scope changes.
Ensuring the facility meets all long-term operational and maintenance requirements for modern military vehicles.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
The contractor, The Mason & Hanger Group Inc., likely has experience in large-scale construction projects, including those for government entities.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly for large institutional and government facilities, is characterized by significant project values and complex logistical requirements. This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sub-sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per unit of capacity for similar military vehicle maintenance facilities or large industrial construction projects, considering regional labor and material costs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('sb': false) and there is no specific mention of small business subcontracting goals. This suggests that the primary contractor is likely a large entity, and opportunities for small businesses would primarily be through subcontracting if initiated by the prime contractor. The absence of explicit set-aside provisions means small businesses did not have a direct competitive advantage for the prime contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance, quality, and compliance. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, with penalties for non-performance or delays. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may be internal to the agency.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Infrastructure
Large-Scale Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for construction delays
Risk of cost overruns (despite FFP)
Contractor performance history (if negative)
Adequacy of competition (moderate with 2 bidders)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.3 million to THE MASON & HANGER GROUP INC.. VEHICLE MAINT FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE MASON & HANGER GROUP 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 $16.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-02. End: 2008-08-16.

What is the track record of The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. in completing similar large-scale government construction projects on time and within budget?

Assessing the track record of The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. requires a review of their past performance on similar projects, particularly those involving military or large institutional facilities. Key metrics to examine would include on-time completion rates, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Publicly available contract databases and performance evaluations (if accessible) can provide insights. A history of successful project delivery would indicate a lower risk for this current contract, while a pattern of delays or cost overruns would raise concerns about the contractor's capability and reliability.

How does the awarded price of $16.3 million compare to the estimated cost or benchmark for similar vehicle maintenance facilities constructed by the DoD or other federal agencies?

To benchmark the $16.3 million award price, one would need to identify comparable vehicle maintenance facilities constructed by the DoD or other federal agencies around the same time period. Factors such as facility size (square footage), specific maintenance capabilities (e.g., number of bays, specialized equipment), location (influencing labor and material costs), and the complexity of the construction would need to be considered. If data from similar projects indicates a significantly lower cost per square foot or per maintenance bay, it could suggest that this contract was either competitively priced or potentially overvalued. Conversely, if the price aligns with or is below benchmarks for comparable facilities, it would support the assessment of good value for money.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this specific contract, considering its scope, duration, and contractor?

Primary risk indicators for this contract include the inherent risks of large-scale construction projects, such as potential for unforeseen site conditions, weather delays, and supply chain disruptions, which could impact the 806-day duration. While the firm-fixed-price contract shifts some financial risk to the contractor, significant delays or scope creep could still lead to disputes or require contract modifications. The contractor's past performance, if it includes a history of project overruns or quality issues, would be a significant risk indicator. Furthermore, the criticality of the facility to military operations means any delays in its completion could impact readiness, posing an operational risk.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring optimal value for taxpayer dollars in the context of large construction contracts like this one?

The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring optimal value for taxpayer dollars in large construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it maximizes the pool of potential bidders, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and innovative solutions. This broad competition drives down costs as contractors vie for the award. However, the effectiveness is contingent on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the agency's ability to evaluate proposals rigorously. In this case, with two bidders, the competition level was moderate, which is still generally beneficial compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

What are the historical spending patterns for vehicle maintenance facilities within the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit into that trend?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for vehicle maintenance facilities within the Department of the Army would involve examining the number of such facilities procured over time, their average contract values, and the types of competition utilized. This data would reveal whether spending on these facilities is increasing, decreasing, or stable, and whether there's a trend towards larger or smaller facilities. This $16.3 million contract can then be assessed against those historical averages. If it represents a typical investment for a facility of this scope, it aligns with established patterns. If it is significantly higher or lower than historical norms, further investigation into the specific requirements and market conditions would be warranted.

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

Solicitation ID: W912HN05R0065

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DAY & Zimmermann Group Inc., the (UEI: 007913486)

Address: 300 W VINE ST STE 1300, LEXINGTON, KY, 06

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,952,490

Exercised Options: $16,293,508

Current Obligation: $16,293,508

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline