Poettker Construction awarded $27.2M for Pierce Terrace School construction, exceeding initial estimates

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,208,617 ($27.2M)

Contractor: Poettker Construction CO.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-03-29

End Date: 2019-08-02

Contract Duration: 856 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF PIERCE TERRACE SCHOOL

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBIA, RICHLAND County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29206

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.2 million to POETTKER CONSTRUCTION CO. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF PIERCE TERRACE SCHOOL Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm-fixed-price contract type and competitive award. 2. Competition dynamics were robust with 10 bidders vying for the contract. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a firm-fixed-price contract mitigating cost overrun risks. 4. Performance context shows a two-year execution period for a significant construction project. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader commercial and institutional building construction market.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $27.2 million for the Pierce Terrace School construction is within a reasonable range for a project of this scope. While specific benchmarking data for similar Department of the Army school construction projects is not readily available, the firm-fixed-price nature of the award suggests that the price was determined through negotiation and competition. The number of bidders (10) indicates a healthy level of interest, which typically drives competitive pricing. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per student capacity to similar facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 10 bids received. This indicates a broad outreach to potential contractors and a competitive bidding process. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the market has sufficient capacity and interest in undertaking such projects for the Department of the Army. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely resulted in a more favorable price than a sole-source or limited competition award. The government secured multiple offers, increasing the likelihood of obtaining the best value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are students and staff of the Pierce Terrace School, who will receive modern educational facilities. The services delivered include the comprehensive construction of a new school building. The geographic impact is localized to the community served by the Pierce Terrace School. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers and related trades during the project duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting the school's opening date.
Ensuring adherence to quality standards throughout the construction process.
Managing the firm-fixed-price contract to prevent scope creep or change order abuse.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type helps control costs.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Defined period of performance (856 days) provides a clear timeline.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. The market for educational facility construction is driven by government funding, demographic changes, and the need for modern infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar educational facilities constructed by government entities or private developers in similar regions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Further investigation would be needed to determine if the prime contractor has a subcontracting plan that includes small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting officer and project managers. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) are standard for ensuring work meets specifications. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
School Construction
Federal Building Projects
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if not managed tightly by the contractor.
Risk of construction delays impacting the operational readiness of the school.
Ensuring compliance with all building codes and safety regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.2 million to POETTKER CONSTRUCTION CO.. IGF::OT::IGF PIERCE TERRACE SCHOOL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is POETTKER CONSTRUCTION CO..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-03-29. End: 2019-08-02.

What is the track record of Poettker Construction Co. with federal contracts, particularly in educational facility construction?

Poettker Construction Co. has a history of federal contracting, though specific details on their experience with educational facilities for the Department of the Army require deeper database analysis. Examining their past performance on similar projects, including contract values, types, and client agencies, would provide a clearer picture of their capabilities and reliability. A review of past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS) would also be crucial to assess their adherence to schedule, budget, and quality requirements on previous federal awards. Without this granular data, assessing their specific track record for this type of project remains general.

How does the awarded price compare to the initial estimated cost or budget for the Pierce Terrace School project?

The provided data does not explicitly state the initial estimated cost or budget for the Pierce Terrace School project, making a direct comparison impossible. The awarded amount is $27,208,617. To assess value for money, one would need to compare this figure against government cost estimates or industry benchmarks for similar school construction projects in the same geographic region. Factors such as square footage, capacity, and specific facility requirements would be essential for a meaningful comparison. The absence of this baseline makes it difficult to determine if the contract was awarded significantly above or below expectations.

What are the key risk factors associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. For Poettker Construction Co., this means they must absorb any unexpected increases in material, labor, or subcontractor costs. Mitigation strategies employed by the government include a thorough pre-award review of the contractor's proposal, ensuring the price is fair and reasonable based on market conditions and the project scope. The government also typically implements robust oversight through quality assurance personnel to ensure the work meets specifications, thereby preventing costly rework. The defined period of performance (856 days) also helps manage schedule-related risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar school construction projects by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending for similar Department of the Army school construction projects would involve querying federal procurement databases for contracts with comparable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (e.g., 236220 - Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) and project types (schools). This would reveal trends in contract values, award types (FFP, cost-plus), competition levels, and average project durations. Understanding these patterns helps establish benchmarks for current and future projects, identify potential cost efficiencies, and assess whether current spending aligns with historical norms or indicates significant shifts in market prices or project complexity.

How does the number of bidders (10) influence the potential value for money achieved in this contract award?

A high number of bidders, such as the 10 received for this contract, generally indicates a healthy and competitive market for the services or goods being procured. From a value-for-money perspective, robust competition typically drives down prices as contractors vie to win the award. It suggests that the government had a good selection of qualified offerors, increasing the likelihood of securing a fair and reasonable price. The extensive competition here likely contributed to achieving better value for the taxpayer compared to a scenario with only one or two bidders, where price discovery might be less effective.

What are the implications of the contract duration (856 days) for project management and potential cost impacts?

A contract duration of 856 days (approximately 2.3 years) for a school construction project is substantial and implies a complex undertaking. This extended timeline allows for detailed planning, phased construction, and integration of various building systems. From a cost perspective, a longer duration can sometimes lead to increased overhead for the contractor and potential exposure to fluctuating material prices, although the firm-fixed-price nature of this contract shifts much of that risk to the contractor. For the government, it means sustained oversight is required throughout the project lifecycle. Delays beyond this period could incur penalties or require contract modifications, impacting the overall cost and schedule.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: W912HN15R0012

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 380 S GERMANTOWN RD, BREESE, IL, 62230

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,209,938

Exercised Options: $27,209,938

Current Obligation: $27,208,617

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline