Fort Benning Building 399 Repairs Awarded for $32.4M, Addressing Critical Infrastructure Failures

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,396,337 ($32.4M)

Contractor: Ashford Leebcor Enterprises LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-09-12

End Date: 2022-08-16

Contract Duration: 1,069 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PROJECT REPAIRS THE FAILED AND FAILING SYSTEMS OF BUILDING 399 SECTIONS A&G AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.4 million to ASHFORD LEEBCOR ENTERPRISES LLC for work described as: PROJECT REPAIRS THE FAILED AND FAILING SYSTEMS OF BUILDING 399 SECTIONS A&G AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA Key points: 1. The contract addresses essential repairs to a critical facility, indicating a need for immediate infrastructure improvement. 2. A firm-fixed-price contract structure suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility. 3. The duration of the contract (1069 days) implies a complex and potentially lengthy repair process. 4. The award was made to Ashford Leebcor Enterprises LLC, a single entity. 5. The project falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a common category for facility maintenance. 6. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad search for qualified bidders.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $32.4 million for building repairs at Fort Benning appears substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale facility repairs at military installations, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract aims to control costs. The base award amount of $30.3 million suggests the initial estimate was close to the final value, but the total value includes potential modifications or options.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that the solicitation was made available to all responsible sources. Six bids were received, suggesting a reasonable level of competition for this type of specialized construction project. The presence of multiple bidders generally supports price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for essential infrastructure repairs helps ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by encouraging contractors to offer their best pricing.

Public Impact

Military personnel and operations at Fort Benning, Georgia, will benefit from the improved functionality and safety of Building 399. The project delivers essential structural and system repairs to critical building infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Benning, Georgia. The project likely involves a construction workforce, contributing to local employment opportunities during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The extended duration of the contract (1069 days) could indicate potential for delays or unforeseen complications in the repair work.
The significant dollar amount raises questions about the thoroughness of the initial cost estimation and the potential for scope creep if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

The use of 'full and open competition' suggests a robust process to find the best value.
The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, which is generally favorable for the government.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs, implying a necessary investment for operational continuity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the repair and maintenance of non-residential structures. Federal spending in this sector is significant, driven by the need to maintain aging government facilities, including military bases. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale construction and repair contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of buildings and scope of work.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. The award went to Ashford Leebcor Enterprises LLC. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors, which is common in larger construction projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army at Fort Benning. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. Transparency would be enhanced by public contract data, but detailed oversight reports or inspector general involvement would depend on specific performance issues or audits.

Related Government Programs

Fort Benning Facility Maintenance
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Military Base Construction and Repair
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for extended project duration leading to delays.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions impacting scope and cost.
Need for sustained quality assurance over a long project timeline.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.4 million to ASHFORD LEEBCOR ENTERPRISES LLC. PROJECT REPAIRS THE FAILED AND FAILING SYSTEMS OF BUILDING 399 SECTIONS A&G AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASHFORD LEEBCOR ENTERPRISES 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 $32.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-09-12. End: 2022-08-16.

What is the track record of Ashford Leebcor Enterprises LLC with federal contracts, particularly in construction and repair?

Ashford Leebcor Enterprises LLC has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily within the construction and facilities maintenance domain. A review of publicly available contract data indicates multiple awards, often for projects similar in nature to the Fort Benning building repair. Analyzing the performance history, including any past issues, contract modifications, or disputes, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability. Understanding their past performance on firm-fixed-price contracts is particularly relevant for assessing their suitability for this project. Their experience with projects of similar scale and complexity at military installations would be a key indicator of their capacity to successfully execute this $32.4 million contract within the specified timeframe.

How does the $32.4 million cost compare to similar building repair projects at military installations?

Benchmarking the $32.4 million cost requires detailed comparison with similar projects, considering factors like building size, age, type of systems being repaired (e.g., HVAC, electrical, structural), and geographic location. Without specific data on comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively state if this cost is high or low. However, large-scale repairs to critical infrastructure on military bases can be complex and expensive due to stringent security requirements, specialized materials, and the need to minimize disruption to ongoing operations. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the government sought to cap costs, but the initial bid prices from the six competitors would offer the best insight into market rates for this specific scope of work.

What are the primary risks associated with a 1069-day construction contract for building repairs?

A contract duration of 1069 days (nearly three years) for building repairs introduces several significant risks. Foremost among these are potential delays due to unforeseen site conditions, weather impacts, or contractor performance issues. Material cost fluctuations over such an extended period could also become a concern, although the firm-fixed-price contract aims to mitigate this for the government. There's also a risk of the building's condition deteriorating further if repairs are significantly delayed. Furthermore, the extended timeline increases the chance of obsolescence for certain repair methods or materials if not carefully managed. Finally, maintaining consistent oversight and quality control over a multi-year project requires sustained effort and resources from the contracting agency.

What is the expected effectiveness of these repairs in addressing the 'failed and failing systems' of Building 399?

The effectiveness of the repairs hinges on the thoroughness of the initial assessment of the building's 'failed and failing systems' and the subsequent execution of the contract scope. The contract's objective is to rectify these critical issues, implying that upon completion, the building's systems should be functional and reliable, meeting the operational needs of its occupants. The firm-fixed-price structure incentivizes the contractor to complete the specified repairs efficiently. However, the long-term effectiveness will also depend on the quality of materials used, the workmanship, and adherence to the repair specifications outlined in the contract documents. Post-completion inspections and performance monitoring will be crucial to confirm the intended effectiveness.

How has federal spending on building construction and repair at Fort Benning evolved over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for building construction and repair at Fort Benning over the past five years would provide context for the $32.4 million award. This would involve examining previous contracts for similar projects, identifying trends in contract values, and noting any recurring needs or significant infrastructure upgrades. Such an analysis could reveal if this award represents a typical investment, an increase in spending due to deferred maintenance, or a response to specific new requirements. Understanding this historical context helps in evaluating whether the current spending level is consistent with past investment strategies or indicates a shift in priorities for facility management at the base.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912HN19R3006

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1769 JAMESTOWN RD, STE 112, WILLIAMSBURG, VA, 23185

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business, Joint Venture Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business, Joint Venture Women Owned Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,396,337

Exercised Options: $32,396,337

Current Obligation: $32,396,337

Actual Outlays: $1,315,996

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline