DoD's $33.8M Flight Simulator Facility Contract Awarded to Hako Plumbing, Inc. Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,867,895 ($33.9M)

Contractor: Hako Plumbing, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-06-12

End Date: 2014-11-26

Contract Duration: 897 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TFI-F-22 NEW CONSTRUCTION FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY AND WEAPONS LOAD TRAINING FACILITY , REAPIR/ALTER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT JBPHH HI

Place of Performance

Location: HICKAM AFB, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96853

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.9 million to HAKO PLUMBING, INC. for work described as: TFI-F-22 NEW CONSTRUCTION FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY AND WEAPONS LOAD TRAINING FACILITY , REAPIR/ALTER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT JBPHH HI Key points: 1. Contract value of $33.8 million for new construction and repair services. 2. Awarded to Hako Plumbing, Inc., a single contractor for the entire project. 3. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, indicating a broad initial search. 4. The contract type is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price. 5. Project duration was 897 days, suggesting a significant construction timeline. 6. Located in Hawaii, potentially impacting labor costs and logistics. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220, for Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $33.8 million for a flight simulator and weapons load training facility, along with repairs, appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale construction projects for military facilities is challenging without more specific project scope details. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which can be a positive indicator for value if the initial pricing was competitive. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This suggests that while the competition was initially broad, certain sources may have been excluded based on specific criteria before the final award. The presence of 3 bidders indicates some level of competition, but the exact number of initial solicitations and the reasons for excluding sources are not detailed. A limited number of bidders, even after an open solicitation, can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The 'full and open' aspect is generally positive for taxpayers, as it aims to solicit the widest possible pool of qualified contractors, theoretically driving down prices through competition. However, the 'after exclusion of sources' clause warrants further scrutiny to ensure no viable competitors were unfairly barred.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will gain access to enhanced training facilities. Services delivered include the construction of a new flight simulator facility and weapons load training facility, as well as repairs to a communications facility. The geographic impact is localized to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) in Hawaii. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers and specialized trades in Hawaii during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type could potentially limit competition if not applied transparently and fairly.
As a definitive contract, the scope and pricing might be subject to adjustments, though the firm fixed-price nature aims to mitigate this.
The project's significant value and construction focus may present risks related to contractor performance, material availability, and unforeseen site conditions.

Positive Signals

The use of 'Full and Open Competition' is a positive signal for achieving competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, encouraging efficient project management.
The project addresses critical training infrastructure needs for the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for government facilities. The construction of specialized training facilities like flight simulators represents a niche within this broader sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale military construction projects, often characterized by complex requirements and significant investment. The market for such specialized government construction is often dominated by a few large firms with the necessary security clearances and expertise.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Hako Plumbing, Inc. is likely a large business, given the contract value. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this project are dependent on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of Defense contract would typically involve contracting officers, program managers, and potentially the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for financial oversight. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply for investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, but detailed project progress and performance metrics are often internal to the agency.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Defense Training Facilities
Government Building Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Competition Level Concerns: 'After Exclusion of Sources' requires scrutiny.
Contractor Performance Unknown: Track record not detailed.
Value Benchmarking Difficulty: Specific scope details lacking for comparison.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.9 million to HAKO PLUMBING, INC.. TFI-F-22 NEW CONSTRUCTION FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY AND WEAPONS LOAD TRAINING FACILITY , REAPIR/ALTER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT JBPHH HI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAKO PLUMBING, 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 $33.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-06-12. End: 2014-11-26.

What is the track record of Hako Plumbing, Inc. with the Department of Defense and for similar construction projects?

Information on Hako Plumbing, Inc.'s specific track record with the Department of Defense and for projects of similar scale and complexity is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance ratings, contract history, and any reported issues or successes on previous government contracts. Without this, it's difficult to gauge their reliability and expertise for this specific $33.8 million construction project. Further research into their contract awards, completion history, and client feedback would be necessary to establish a robust understanding of their capabilities and past performance.

How does the $33.8 million contract value compare to similar flight simulator or weapons load training facility constructions for the DoD?

Directly comparing the $33.8 million contract value for this specific project to similar DoD constructions is challenging without more granular data on the scope, size, and specific features of comparable facilities. Construction costs can vary significantly based on location (e.g., Hawaii's higher cost of living and logistics), specific technological requirements for simulators, security needs, and the extent of associated infrastructure (like administrative buildings or maintenance areas). While $33.8 million represents a substantial investment, its 'value for money' can only be truly assessed by benchmarking against projects with identical or very similar specifications and in comparable economic environments. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to lock in costs, but the initial estimate's competitiveness remains unverified.

What are the primary risks associated with this construction contract, and how were they mitigated?

Key risks for a large-scale construction project like this include potential cost overruns (mitigated by the firm fixed-price contract, shifting risk to the contractor), schedule delays (due to weather, labor shortages, material availability, or unforeseen site conditions), contractor performance issues, and scope creep. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' might introduce a risk if the exclusion criteria were overly restrictive, potentially limiting the pool of highly qualified bidders. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight, clear performance metrics, liquidated damages clauses for delays, and thorough pre-award vetting of contractor capabilities and financial stability. The specific mitigation plans employed by the DoD for this contract are not detailed in the provided data.

What is the historical spending pattern for flight simulator and weapons load training facilities by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending patterns for specialized training facilities like flight simulators and weapons load training facilities by the Department of Defense are not directly available from the provided data. This specific contract represents a single data point. To understand broader trends, one would need to analyze aggregate spending data across multiple years and military branches for similar types of construction and facility upgrades. Factors influencing historical spending include evolving military technology, training requirements, base realignments, and budget allocations. Analyzing trends would require accessing historical contract databases and categorizing spending by facility type and agency over time.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply about the procurement process and potential bidder pool?

This procurement method suggests an initial broad solicitation ('Full and Open Competition') followed by a narrowing of the field based on specific criteria ('Exclusion of Sources'). This could mean that while the government initially sought proposals from all responsible sources, certain categories or specific companies were deemed ineligible or unsuitable early in the process, perhaps due to specialized requirements, security concerns, or past performance issues. The fact that 3 bids were received indicates that despite exclusions, a competitive environment was maintained. However, the transparency and justification for the exclusions are critical to ensure fairness and maximize competition, preventing potential anti-competitive effects.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912J612R0003

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 958 AKEPO LN, HONOLULU, HI, 96817

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $36,303,966

Exercised Options: $33,867,895

Current Obligation: $33,867,895

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline