Army awards $13.3M for airfield structures, exceeding initial estimates by $1.5M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,299,402 ($13.3M)

Contractor: Sambe Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-26

End Date: 2008-01-18

Contract Duration: 844 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200512!500331!2100!W912KN!USPFO FOR NEW JERSEY !W912KN05C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20050926!20070415!101442002!101442002!101442002!N!SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN!1650 HYLTON RD !PENNSAUKEN !NJ!08110!20290!001!34!EGG HARBOR !ATLANTIC !NEW JERSEY!+000012946636!N!N!000012826930!Y129!OTHER AIRFIELD STRUCTURES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !236220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!U!J!2!004!K! !D!N!Z! ! !N!A!Y!N!Z! ! ! !D!A!000!A!B!Y!U!N! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, ATLANTIC County, NEW JERSEY, 08234

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.3 million to SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: 200512!500331!2100!W912KN!USPFO FOR NEW JERSEY !W912KN05C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20050926!20070415!101442002!101442002!101442002!N!SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN!1650 HYLTON RD !PENNSAUKEN !NJ!08110!20290!001!34!EGG HARBOR !ATLA… Key points: 1. Contract value significantly surpassed initial estimates, suggesting potential for cost overruns or scope expansion. 2. The contract was competed, but the specific details of bidder participation are not fully detailed, impacting price discovery assessment. 3. A high number of bidders (4) indicates a competitive market for this type of construction service. 4. The contract duration of 844 days suggests a substantial project scope or complex execution requirements. 5. The contractor, Sambe Construction Company, Inc., has a track record with federal contracts, requiring further analysis of past performance. 6. The project falls under the 'Other Airfield Structures' category, indicating specialized construction needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The final award amount of $13,299,402 is approximately $1.5 million higher than the initial estimated value of $11,723,562. This variance warrants scrutiny to understand if it reflects increased scope, material costs, or other factors. Benchmarking against similar airfield structure projects would provide a clearer picture of value for money. Without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was competitive.

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 that while competition was sought, certain sources may have been excluded based on specific criteria. Four bidders participated in this competition. A higher number of bidders generally suggests a more competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing for the government. However, the 'after exclusion of sources' clause requires further investigation to understand its implications on the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the bidding process, with four participants, likely benefited taxpayers by driving down prices. However, the exclusion of certain sources could have limited the potential for even greater cost savings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially military personnel utilizing the airfield. The contract delivers essential airfield structures, crucial for operational readiness and infrastructure maintenance. The geographic impact is localized to Egg Harbor, Atlantic County, New Jersey, where the construction will take place. The project will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within the New Jersey region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The final award significantly exceeded initial estimates, raising questions about the accuracy of initial budgeting and potential for cost escalation.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further examination to ensure no viable contractors were unfairly prevented from bidding.
The duration of the contract (844 days) is substantial and could indicate potential for delays or unforeseen challenges during execution.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a competitive process, indicating multiple firms vied for the work.
The Department of the Army, a major federal agency, is the contracting entity, suggesting a project of significant importance.
The contractor, Sambe Construction Company, Inc., has prior federal contracting experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically focusing on 'Other Airfield Structures.' The market for specialized construction services like this is often characterized by a mix of large general contractors and smaller, specialized firms. Federal spending in construction, particularly for defense infrastructure, can be substantial, with significant annual outlays. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other airfield construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other agencies for similar types of structures and project scopes.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses, nor is there information on subcontracting plans. Given the nature and potential value of airfield construction, it is possible that larger firms dominated the bidding. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses had opportunities to participate either as prime contractors or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is facilitated by public contract databases, but detailed project progress and specific cost justifications may not always be readily available to the public.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Airfield Infrastructure Projects
Federal Construction Services
Army Corps of Engineers Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential cost overrun due to award exceeding estimates
Limited transparency on specific reasons for source exclusion
Extended contract duration increases risk exposure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.3 million to SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. 200512!500331!2100!W912KN!USPFO FOR NEW JERSEY !W912KN05C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20050926!20070415!101442002!101442002!101442002!N!SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN!1650 HYLTON RD !PENNSAUKEN !NJ!08110!20290!001!34!EGG HARBOR !ATLANTIC !NEW JERSEY!+000012946636!N!N!000012826930!Y129!OTHER AIRFIELD STRUCTURES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !236220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SAMBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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 $13.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-26. End: 2008-01-18.

What is the track record of Sambe Construction Company, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly regarding performance and cost adherence?

Sambe Construction Company, Inc. has a history of federal contracting. A thorough review of their past performance on similar projects, including on-time delivery, adherence to budget, and quality of work, is crucial. Examining past contract awards and modifications can reveal patterns in their ability to manage complex projects and control costs. Data on any past disputes, claims, or contract terminations would also be highly relevant in assessing their reliability and suitability for future federal work. Understanding their experience with airfield construction specifically would provide further insight into their capabilities.

How does the final award value compare to the initial estimated value and what factors contributed to the difference?

The final award of $13,299,402 significantly exceeded the initial estimated value of $11,723,562 by approximately $1.5 million, or about 12.8%. This variance could be attributed to several factors, including underestimation of material costs, labor expenses, unforeseen site conditions, changes in project scope during the bidding process, or a highly competitive bidding environment where contractors factored in higher risk premiums. A detailed cost analysis comparing the initial estimate to the final awarded price, along with any documented changes in scope or specifications, is necessary to fully understand the drivers of this difference and assess value for money.

What are the specific 'Other Airfield Structures' being constructed or repaired under this contract?

The contract specifies 'Other Airfield Structures' (NAICS code 236220) without detailing the exact nature of these structures. This category can encompass a wide range of facilities, such as aircraft maintenance hangars, control towers, administrative buildings, storage facilities, or specialized support structures. To understand the project's full scope and impact, it would be beneficial to obtain the detailed Statement of Work (SOW) or contract specifications. This would clarify whether the project involves new construction, renovation, or upgrades to existing infrastructure, and identify the specific types of buildings or facilities involved.

What does the 'after exclusion of sources' clause imply for the breadth of competition and potential taxpayer savings?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the contract was broadly competed, certain potential bidders were intentionally excluded. The reasons for exclusion could range from specific technical requirements, security clearances, past performance issues, or geographic limitations. While four bidders participated, the exclusion of other qualified firms might have limited the overall competitive pressure, potentially leading to a higher-than-necessary award price. Understanding the criteria for exclusion is key to assessing whether it was justified and if it inadvertently reduced potential taxpayer savings by narrowing the field of competitors.

What is the typical cost range for similar 'Other Airfield Structures' projects awarded by the Department of the Army?

Determining a precise typical cost range for 'Other Airfield Structures' is challenging without more specific project details (e.g., square footage, type of structure, complexity). However, federal contract databases can be queried for similar projects. For instance, contracts for aircraft hangars or maintenance facilities can range from a few million dollars to tens of millions, depending on size and features. The $13.3 million award for this project appears to be within a moderate to high range for specialized construction, but a direct comparison requires matching project scope, location, and contract type. Analyzing historical data for similar projects would provide a more robust benchmark.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract duration of 844 days?

A contract duration of 844 days (approximately 2.3 years) for airfield structure construction presents several potential risks. These include increased exposure to fluctuating material and labor costs over an extended period, potential for project delays due to weather, supply chain disruptions, or unforeseen site conditions, and the possibility of scope creep or design changes that could escalate costs. Furthermore, a longer duration may require more intensive project management and oversight to ensure progress and accountability. The government also faces the risk of the contractor's key personnel or resources becoming unavailable during such a long timeframe.

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

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1650 HYLTON RD, PENNSAUKEN, NJ, 01

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline