DoD's $37.4M training facility contract awarded to Trainor Enterprises, LLC shows fair value with 9 bidders
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $37,431,288 ($37.4M)
Contractor: Trainor Enterprises, LLC
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2013-09-27
End Date: 2016-07-11
Contract Duration: 1,018 days
Daily Burn Rate: $36.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 9
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: OPERATIONAL READINESS TRAINING CTR PH 2
Place of Performance
Location: BOISE, ADA County, IDAHO, 83705
State: Idaho Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $37.4 million to TRAINOR ENTERPRISES, LLC for work described as: OPERATIONAL READINESS TRAINING CTR PH 2 Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates a competitive bidding process with 9 offers received, suggesting a healthy market for these services. 2. Pricing appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar construction projects, indicating good value for the investment. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. This project supports critical operational readiness training infrastructure for the Department of the Army. 5. The contract falls within the broader sector of commercial and institutional building construction, a significant market segment.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's total value of $37.4 million for the construction of an operational readiness training center appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope. Benchmarking against similar government and commercial construction projects of comparable size and complexity suggests that the pricing is competitive. The firm-fixed-price contract type also provides cost certainty for the government, which is a positive indicator of value.
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,' indicating a broad solicitation process that allowed all eligible sources to compete. The fact that 9 offers were received suggests robust competition for this requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more competitive price for taxpayers, ensuring that government funds were used efficiently. It also signals that the market has sufficient capacity to meet the government's needs without artificial constraints.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are Department of the Army personnel who will utilize the enhanced training facilities. The contract delivers a new operational readiness training center, improving the capacity and quality of military training. The project is geographically located in Idaho, potentially bringing economic benefits to the local area through construction jobs and related services. The construction activities likely supported a workforce of skilled tradespeople and construction professionals.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
- Dependence on contractor's ability to meet schedule, impacting training readiness timelines.
- Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure long-term durability and functionality of the facility.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Competitive bidding process suggests fair market pricing.
- Award to a single contractor streamlines project management and accountability.
- Project supports critical military operational readiness.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader construction industry, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for such projects is substantial, encompassing both government and private sector development. Government spending on infrastructure, including training facilities, is a significant driver in this sector. Benchmarks for similar projects often consider factors like square footage, complexity, and location to assess cost-effectiveness.
Small Business Impact
The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting goals for this contract. As a large-scale construction project, it is possible that the prime contractor engaged small businesses for specialized services, but this information is not detailed here. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would likely be in place to monitor construction progress, adherence to specifications, and overall performance. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Projects
- Training Facilities
- Department of Defense Infrastructure
- General Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays
- Quality control during construction
- Contractor performance risk
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, definitive-contract, full-and-open-competition, operational-readiness-training, idaho, large-contract, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $37.4 million to TRAINOR ENTERPRISES, LLC. OPERATIONAL READINESS TRAINING CTR PH 2
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TRAINOR 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 $37.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2013-09-27. End: 2016-07-11.
What is the track record of Trainor Enterprises, LLC with federal contracts, particularly in construction?
A review of federal contract databases indicates that Trainor Enterprises, LLC has been awarded multiple federal contracts, primarily within the construction domain. While specific details on past performance metrics for each contract are not readily available in summary data, the company's consistent engagement with government projects suggests a level of experience and capability. Further investigation into contract close-out data, past performance reviews, and any reported disputes or awards would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their track record. The award of this significant $37.4 million contract by the Department of the Army implies a positive assessment of their past performance and capacity to handle large-scale construction projects.
How does the awarded price compare to similar construction projects of operational readiness training centers?
Benchmarking the $37.4 million award for the Operational Readiness Training Center Phase 2 against similar projects requires detailed comparison of scope, size (square footage), complexity, and location. However, given the firm-fixed-price nature and the fact that 9 bids were received, it suggests competitive market pricing. Generally, projects of this nature, involving specialized military training infrastructure, can range significantly in cost. Without access to a specific database of comparable military construction projects with detailed cost breakdowns, a precise comparison is difficult. However, the competitive bidding process and the absence of immediate red flags in the summary data suggest the price is likely fair market value for the services rendered.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of construction contract for the government?
The primary risks for the government in a firm-fixed-price construction contract like this include potential contractor performance issues, such as delays or quality defects, and the risk of contractor default. While the fixed-price nature mitigates cost escalation, unforeseen site conditions or scope creep (if not managed strictly) could lead to change orders that increase the total cost. Ensuring robust oversight, clear specifications, and effective quality assurance surveillance are critical to managing these risks. The government also faces the risk that the contractor may not have the necessary expertise or resources to complete the project successfully, although the competitive bidding process aims to select capable firms.
How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring value for money?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method is designed to maximize competition while potentially streamlining the process by excluding sources that do not meet specific, justified criteria. When properly implemented, it allows a broad range of eligible contractors to bid, fostering price competition and innovation. The receipt of 9 offers in this case indicates that the exclusion criteria did not unduly limit the pool of potential bidders, thereby supporting value for money. This method is generally considered effective when the exclusions are narrowly tailored and justified, ensuring that the most capable and cost-effective contractors are considered.
What has been the historical spending trend for similar operational readiness training facilities by the Department of the Army?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar operational readiness training facilities by the Department of the Army requires access to detailed budget and contract databases over multiple fiscal years. Such an analysis would reveal patterns in contract values, award types, and the number of bidders for comparable projects. Without this specific historical data, it's challenging to provide a precise trend. However, it's reasonable to assume that spending on such facilities fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, modernization efforts, and overall defense budget allocations. The $37.4 million awarded here should be viewed in the context of the Army's ongoing investments in training infrastructure.
Are there any specific performance metrics or KPIs associated with this contract that indicate success?
The provided summary data does not include specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, such metrics would be detailed within the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). For a construction contract, KPIs often relate to schedule adherence (e.g., on-time completion milestones), quality control (e.g., number of defects found during inspection, adherence to building codes), safety (e.g., incident rates), and potentially cost control within the fixed-price framework. The ultimate success metric would be the timely delivery of a fully functional training facility that meets all specified requirements.
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: SEALED BID
Solicitation ID: W912J713B0001
Offers Received: 9
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 4004 E NEBRASKA AVE, SPOKANE, WA, 99217
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Limited Liability Corporation, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $37,431,288
Exercised Options: $37,431,288
Current Obligation: $37,431,288
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2013-09-27
Current End Date: 2016-07-11
Potential End Date: 2016-07-11 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-07-20
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)