DoD's $28.8M contract for a rescue training facility awarded to Flintco Pacific, Inc. in 2012

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,807,303 ($28.8M)

Contractor: Flintco Pacific, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-09-26

End Date: 2015-03-31

Contract Duration: 916 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: REPLACE PARARESCUE TRAINING FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: MOFFETT FIELD, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 94035, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.8 million to FLINTCO PACIFIC, INC. for work described as: REPLACE PARARESCUE TRAINING FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract value of $28.8 million for a rescue training facility represents a significant investment in specialized infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract suggests a robust bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract (916 days) indicates a complex project requiring substantial planning and execution. 4. The fixed-price contract type likely aimed to control costs and provide predictability for the government. 5. The project's location in California may have implications for regional construction labor markets and material sourcing. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor was not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not explicitly detailed.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns or comparable facility construction projects. However, $28.8 million for a specialized training facility of this nature, awarded over a decade ago, falls within a plausible range for large-scale construction. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to lock in costs, but the final expenditure relative to initial estimates would be a key indicator of value for money. Further analysis would require comparing the facility's features and scale to similar government or private sector training centers.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 8 bidders participating, the competition level appears healthy, which typically drives more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the market had sufficient capacity and interest in undertaking this type of construction project.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with multiple offers generally leads to lower prices for taxpayers compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are Department of Defense personnel who will utilize the advanced rescue training facility. The facility will deliver specialized training capabilities crucial for emergency response and combat readiness. The geographic impact is localized to the training site in California, but the skills trained have broader national security implications. The project likely supported construction jobs in California during its execution phase.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arose during the long construction period, despite the fixed-price contract.
The specific capabilities and effectiveness of the training facility post-construction are not detailed.
Long-term maintenance and operational costs of the specialized facility are not specified.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust and fair bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps manage budget certainty.
The project was awarded to a specific contractor, implying they met the technical and performance requirements.
The contract duration suggests a comprehensive and well-defined scope of work.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this sector often supports critical infrastructure, including specialized facilities for training, research, and operations. The market for such projects is characterized by large general contractors capable of managing complex, high-value builds, often competing for government contracts that require adherence to strict regulations and performance standards. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects for government agencies, particularly those involving specialized training or operational facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the data does not indicate any specific subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contract was likely awarded to a large business. While large prime contractors often utilize small business subcontractors, the absence of explicit set-aside provisions or reporting on subcontracting performance means the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is not immediately clear from this data alone. Further investigation into the prime contractor's subcontracting practices would be needed to assess the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Quality assurance representatives would likely monitor construction progress and adherence to specifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic details of the contract, though detailed project performance and cost audits are usually internal or subject to specific reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
Specialized Training Facilities
Construction Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns despite fixed-price contract if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
Long project duration increases exposure to market fluctuations and execution challenges.
Specific performance metrics and post-completion effectiveness are not detailed in the award data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.8 million to FLINTCO PACIFIC, INC.. REPLACE PARARESCUE TRAINING FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FLINTCO PACIFIC, 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 $28.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-26. End: 2015-03-31.

What specific rescue capabilities does this training facility aim to enhance for the Department of Defense?

While the provided data does not detail the specific rescue capabilities, a facility of this nature, costing $28.8 million and awarded by the Department of the Army, would likely focus on advanced training scenarios. This could include simulated disaster environments (e.g., collapsed structures, confined spaces, hazardous material incidents), complex medical evacuation procedures, and tactical rescue operations. The goal would be to improve personnel proficiency in responding to a wide range of emergencies, from battlefield casualties to natural disaster relief efforts, thereby enhancing overall operational readiness and survivability.

How does the $28.8 million cost compare to similar federal rescue training facility constructions?

Direct comparison of the $28.8 million cost is difficult without specific details on the facility's size, features, and location, as well as the year of construction. However, large-scale specialized construction projects for the government can range widely. For context, other significant military construction projects, such as barracks or training ranges, can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. A dedicated rescue training facility, potentially incorporating complex simulation technology and robust safety features, could plausibly fall within this range. A more precise benchmark would require identifying comparable projects completed around the same time frame and with similar functional requirements.

What were the key performance indicators or success metrics for Flintco Pacific, Inc. on this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or success metrics for Flintco Pacific, Inc. on this contract. Typically, for construction contracts, success is measured by adherence to the project schedule, completion within budget (especially relevant for fixed-price contracts), quality of construction meeting specified standards and codes, and overall client satisfaction. For a training facility, functional performance and durability would also be critical. These metrics are usually detailed in the contract's statement of work and performance work statement, and their fulfillment would be assessed through contract close-out procedures.

What is the historical spending trend for similar rescue training facilities by the Department of Defense?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for similar rescue training facilities by the Department of Defense requires access to comprehensive contract databases over multiple fiscal years. This specific contract from 2012 represents a single data point. To establish a trend, one would need to aggregate data on all contracts awarded for 'rescue training facilities' or closely related terms (e.g., 'emergency response training centers,' 'combat casualty care simulators') across different Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps commands. Examining the number of awards, average contract values, and total obligated amounts over time would reveal patterns in investment in such specialized infrastructure.

Were there any notable risks identified during the bidding or execution phases of this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly list identified risks for this contract. However, for a large construction project like a training facility, common risks include unforeseen site conditions (geotechnical issues, environmental contamination), design changes or errors, material cost fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price), labor shortages or disputes, and delays due to weather or regulatory hurdles. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract ($28.8M) suggests that the contractor, Flintco Pacific, Inc., assumed significant cost risk. The contract's duration (916 days) also implies a substantial period during which various risks could materialize.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912LA12R7025

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Alberici Corporation (UEI: 150937027)

Address: 401 DEREK PL, ROSEVILLE, CA, 95678

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,807,303

Exercised Options: $28,807,303

Current Obligation: $28,807,303

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline