DOD awards $25.5M for boiler plant equipment, raising questions on competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,518,422 ($25.5M)

Contractor: Bristol Design Build Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2013-09-24

Contract Duration: 1,455 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BOILER PLANT EQUIPMENT

Place of Performance

Location: CHILLICOTHE, ROSS County, OHIO, 45601

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.5 million to BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, LLC for work described as: BOILER PLANT EQUIPMENT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, limiting price discovery. 2. Duration of the contract (1455 days) suggests a significant project scope. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but initial pricing needs scrutiny. 4. Geographic location in Ohio may indicate regional infrastructure needs. 5. Lack of small business participation noted, potentially missing economic opportunities. 6. The specific equipment type (boiler plant) points to critical facility maintenance.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $25.5 million for boiler plant equipment over approximately four years appears substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to cap costs, but the absence of competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price. Benchmarking against similar large-scale HVAC or industrial equipment installations would be necessary for a more robust evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in urgent situations. The lack of competition means that potential cost savings that could arise from a bidding process were likely forgone. It also limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or technologies that might have been offered by other contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without multiple offers, there is less assurance that the price reflects market rates or that the most cost-effective solution was chosen.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the acquisition of essential boiler plant equipment, likely for facility heating and operational support. Services delivered include the provision and potentially installation/maintenance of critical infrastructure components. The geographic impact is centered in Ohio, where the contract was awarded. Workforce implications may involve specialized technicians for installation and maintenance, though direct job creation figures are not provided.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the selection process due to non-competitive nature.
Long contract duration without clear performance metrics raises concerns about ongoing value.
Absence of small business participation may indicate missed opportunities for economic inclusion.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type helps to establish cost certainty for the government.
Awarding to a specific entity suggests a perceived capability to meet the requirement.
The contract addresses a critical infrastructure need for the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the construction and industrial equipment sector, specifically related to HVAC and facility maintenance. Boiler plant equipment is crucial for large facilities, particularly military bases, to ensure operational readiness and personnel comfort. The market for such specialized equipment can be concentrated, but the absence of competition here is notable. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve large-scale infrastructure projects or major equipment procurements for federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by the 'sb' field being false. The sole-source nature of the award further suggests that opportunities for small businesses, either as prime contractors or through subcontracting, were likely limited. This could represent a missed opportunity to leverage the capabilities of the small business industrial base and promote economic growth within that sector.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management oversight mechanisms. Given the sole-source award, scrutiny might focus on the justification for non-competition and the reasonableness of the price. Transparency is limited due to the lack of a competitive process. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
HVAC and Plumbing Equipment Procurement
Federal Infrastructure Modernization Projects
Sole-Source Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about price reasonableness.
Lack of competition limits potential for cost savings.
Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or scope creep.
Absence of small business participation noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.5 million to BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, LLC. BOILER PLANT EQUIPMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRISTOL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES, 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 $25.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2013-09-24.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is synonymous with a sole-source award. Typically, such awards require a formal justification, often citing reasons like urgency, unique capabilities of a single source, or the unavailability of other sources. Without access to the contract file or specific justification documentation, the precise reason remains unknown. However, common justifications include national security imperatives, the need for compatibility with existing systems, or a lack of qualified alternative vendors. This lack of competition warrants further investigation into the necessity of such an approach.

How does the awarded amount of $25.5 million compare to similar boiler plant equipment procurements by the DoD or other federal agencies?

Direct comparison of the $25.5 million award for boiler plant equipment is challenging without specific details on the scope, capacity, and included services (e.g., installation, maintenance). However, large-scale industrial equipment and facility upgrades for federal agencies can range significantly. For instance, major boiler replacements or new plant constructions can easily run into tens of millions of dollars, depending on the size and complexity of the facility. The duration of this contract (1455 days) suggests a substantial project, potentially encompassing design, manufacturing, delivery, and installation. Benchmarking against similar fixed-price contracts for industrial equipment of comparable scale would be necessary to assess if this price point is reasonable.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude and duration?

Sole-source contracts of this magnitude ($25.5 million) and duration (over 1400 days) carry several inherent risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to inflated pricing, as the contractor faces no pressure to offer the most competitive bid. Secondly, without multiple bidders, there's a reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or provide exceptional service, as switching to an alternative provider is not an option. Thirdly, the long duration increases the risk of cost overruns if the fixed-price contract doesn't adequately account for potential material cost increases or unforeseen project complexities. Finally, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, making future procurements or upgrades more difficult and potentially more expensive.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place for this contract?

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, the primary performance metric would be the successful delivery of the specified boiler plant equipment according to the contract's technical requirements and schedule. Oversight would likely involve contract administration by the awarding agency (Department of the Army, under DoD), including monitoring progress, reviewing deliverables, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. For a project of this scale, periodic site visits, technical reviews, and acceptance testing of the equipment would be standard oversight activities. However, the effectiveness of oversight in a sole-source scenario is often less robust than in a competitive environment, as the focus is more on compliance than on optimizing value.

What is the historical spending pattern for boiler plant equipment by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on boiler plant equipment by the Department of Defense is likely substantial, given the vast number of facilities the DoD operates globally, many of which require robust heating and power systems. While specific aggregate data for 'boiler plant equipment' across the entire DoD isn't readily available in this snippet, the agency frequently procures large-scale HVAC, plumbing, and industrial equipment through various contract vehicles. Spending patterns would fluctuate based on infrastructure modernization initiatives, aging equipment replacement cycles, and new construction projects. The DoD often utilizes both competitive bidding and, in specific circumstances, sole-source awards for such critical infrastructure components.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Building Equipment Contractors › Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W912HN09R0077

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 111 W 16TH AVE STE 303, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,518,422

Exercised Options: $25,518,422

Current Obligation: $25,518,422

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline