Department of the Army's $30.6M Building 16 Remodel contract awarded to RECCO INC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,566,458 ($30.6M)

Contractor: Recco Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-11-30

End Date: 2017-11-03

Contract Duration: 2,165 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.1K/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: BLDG 16 REMODEL

Place of Performance

Location: CHEYENNE, LARAMIE County, WYOMING, 82009

State: Wyoming Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.6 million to RECCO INC for work described as: BLDG 16 REMODEL Key points: 1. The contract value of $30.6 million for a building remodel appears substantial, warranting a close look at the scope and deliverables. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract suggests a competitive bidding process was intended, though the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, RECCO INC., which can be beneficial for cost certainty if managed effectively. 4. The contract duration of 2165 days (nearly 6 years) is lengthy for a construction project, potentially indicating complexity or phased execution. 5. The project's location in Wyoming (WY) may have implications for local labor markets and material sourcing. 6. The absence of specific small business set-aside information requires clarification on subcontracting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $30.6 million for a building remodel is significant. Without detailed project specifications, it is difficult to benchmark against similar projects. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the long duration could lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per major component against industry standards for similar renovations in the region.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, making it a limited competition. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated but the 'limited' nature suggests fewer than a truly open competition. This could potentially impact price discovery and lead to higher costs compared to a fully open process.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even if justified, means taxpayers may not have benefited from the lowest possible price achievable through maximum competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army, receiving an updated or renovated Building 16. The services delivered include industrial building construction and remodeling. The geographic impact is localized to Wyoming (WY). Workforce implications include potential job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the Wyoming area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type raises concerns about whether the full spectrum of potential contractors was considered, potentially limiting competitive pricing.
The long contract duration (2165 days) increases the risk of scope creep, unforeseen site conditions, or material price fluctuations impacting the final cost.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals could mean missed opportunities for smaller firms to participate in this significant federal contract.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined and managed.
Awarding under a competitive procedure, even with exclusions, suggests an effort to obtain value, rather than a sole-source award.
The contract is managed by the Department of the Army, a major federal agency with established procurement processes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector (NAICS code 236210). This sector involves the construction of nonresidential buildings, including industrial facilities. The market size for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by infrastructure needs and facility modernization across various agencies. This specific contract represents a significant investment in facility improvement for the Department of the Army, fitting within broader government efforts to maintain and upgrade its physical assets.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'sb' field is false and there's no mention of set-asides. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses may have been limited, either as prime contractors or potentially through subcontracting if not explicitly mandated. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess the full impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency could be enhanced by making detailed project milestones, progress reports, and final inspection results publicly available. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction over any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Construction
Federal Building Renovations
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Industrial Facility Modernization
Government Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of cost escalation over the long contract duration.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals.
Need for detailed justification for source exclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.6 million to RECCO INC. BLDG 16 REMODEL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RECCO 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 $30.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-11-30. End: 2017-11-03.

What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources from the competition?

The justification for excluding sources under the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type is critical for understanding the competitive landscape. Typically, such exclusions are based on specific technical requirements, past performance, security clearances, or unique capabilities that only a limited number of firms possess. Without this specific justification, it's difficult to assess whether the exclusion was necessary to meet project needs or if it unduly restricted competition. If the exclusion was not adequately justified, it could imply that the government did not achieve the best possible value for taxpayers by limiting the pool of potential bidders.

How does the cost of this $30.6 million remodel compare to similar industrial building construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army or other federal agencies in recent years?

Benchmarking the $30.6 million cost requires detailed project specifics such as square footage, scope of work (e.g., structural, MEP, finishes), and the level of modernization. However, a preliminary comparison can be made based on general construction cost indices. For large-scale industrial building renovations, costs can range significantly, but a project of this magnitude suggests a comprehensive overhaul. If comparable projects of similar scope and complexity in the same region were completed for substantially less, or if this project's cost per square foot is notably higher than the agency's historical average or government-wide benchmarks, it would indicate potential value concerns. Further analysis would involve accessing project-specific data or cost-estimating databases.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this building remodel contract, and how has RECCO INC. performed against them?

Key performance indicators for a construction contract like the BLDG 16 REMODEL typically include adherence to schedule, budget, quality standards, safety compliance, and stakeholder satisfaction. For a firm-fixed-price contract, meeting the agreed-upon price is paramount. Performance data, such as on-time completion of milestones, number of change orders, safety incident rates, and post-construction defect reports, would be crucial. Assessing RECCO INC.'s performance would involve reviewing contract performance reports, any documented disputes or claims, and feedback from the government's project oversight team. Without access to these internal performance metrics, a definitive assessment of RECCO INC.'s success is challenging.

Given the contract's duration of 2165 days, what mechanisms are in place to manage potential cost increases due to inflation or changes in material prices?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) nature of this contract generally means that the contractor, RECCO INC., bears the risk of cost increases due to inflation or material price fluctuations. However, long-duration FFP contracts can sometimes include economic price adjustment (EPA) clauses, though these are less common and typically require specific justification. If no EPA clause exists, RECCO INC. would be expected to absorb these costs. The government's primary control mechanism is the defined scope and the contractor's obligation to deliver within the fixed price. Effective project management and oversight by the Army are crucial to ensure the contractor adequately planned for these risks and that the scope remains tightly controlled to prevent cost overruns.

What is the historical spending pattern for building renovations and construction within the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit into that trend?

The Department of the Army consistently allocates significant funds towards facilities maintenance, renovation, and construction to support its global operations and infrastructure. Historical spending patterns reveal a continuous need for upgrades to aging facilities, compliance with modern standards, and adaptation to new operational requirements. This $30.6 million contract for the BLDG 16 REMODEL is one component of a much larger capital investment portfolio. Its size suggests a substantial project, potentially a major renovation or upgrade rather than routine maintenance. Analyzing this contract's value in context requires comparing it to the agency's overall facilities budget and the frequency and scale of similar renovation projects undertaken annually.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W912L311R0003

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3496 AGATE RD, CHEYENNE, WY, 82009

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,566,458

Exercised Options: $30,566,458

Current Obligation: $30,566,458

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline