DoD awards $16.9M construction contract for Camp Roberts, California, with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,919,275 ($16.9M)

Contractor: AE West LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-08-15

End Date: 2026-03-25

Contract Duration: 587 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.8K/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: CONSTRUCT MPMG AT CAMP ROBERTS

Place of Performance

Location: SAN MIGUEL, SAN LUIS OBISPO County, CALIFORNIA, 93451

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.9 million to AE WEST LLC for work described as: CONSTRUCT MPMG AT CAMP ROBERTS Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of construction services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. Definitive contract type indicates a need for ongoing services over a period. 4. Fixed-price contract shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 5. Project duration of nearly two years suggests a substantial undertaking. 6. Location in California may influence labor and material costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $16.9 million for construction services at Camp Roberts is within a typical range for projects of this scale. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts in California would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the pricing was determined upfront and is intended to cover all contractor costs and profit, with the risk of cost overruns largely borne by AE WEST LLC.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was open, certain sources were initially excluded. With three bidders participating, the competition level is moderate. This suggests that while multiple firms were considered, the market might not be as broad as a completely unrestricted full and open competition. The presence of three bidders likely contributed to price discovery, but a higher number of bidders could potentially have driven prices lower.

Taxpayer Impact: A moderate level of competition means taxpayers likely received a fair price, but there may be an opportunity for even greater savings with broader outreach in future procurements.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and military personnel stationed at Camp Roberts, who will receive improved facilities. The contract will deliver commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is localized to Camp Roberts, California. The project is expected to create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within California.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price structure.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant construction project introduces execution risk.
Limited competition could mean less aggressive pricing than a wider bid process.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Multiple bidders indicate a degree of market interest and capability.
Project duration allows for phased completion and potential learning curve benefits.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, frequently awarding contracts for infrastructure development and facility upgrades at military installations. Market size for federal construction is substantial, with significant annual outlays. This specific contract contributes to the ongoing modernization and maintenance of military infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (sb: false). While AE WEST LLC is the prime contractor, there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem will depend on whether the prime contractor actively seeks to engage small businesses for specialized services or material supply.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring AE WEST LLC to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Moderate competition level may indicate potential for missed savings.
Contract type 'Definitive Contract' requires clear scope definition to avoid modifications.
Exclusion of sources in competition warrants review for justification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.9 million to AE WEST LLC. CONSTRUCT MPMG AT CAMP ROBERTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AE WEST 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 $16.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-08-15. End: 2026-03-25.

What is the track record of AE WEST LLC with the Department of Defense?

Information regarding AE WEST LLC's specific track record with the Department of Defense is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance on similar federal contracts, including any history of timely delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work. Databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) would typically contain such historical performance information. Without this data, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability and past success on government projects.

How does the awarded price compare to similar construction projects at military bases?

The provided data does not include specific cost breakdowns or unit pricing that would allow for a direct comparison to similar construction projects. However, the total value of $16.9 million for a definitive contract with a duration of 587 days (approximately 1.6 years) suggests a project of considerable scope. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare this contract's value against the square footage, complexity of construction, and specific types of facilities being built at other military installations of similar size and geographic location. The 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code provides a general category, but project-specific details are crucial for accurate benchmarking.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract, while generally favorable to the government for cost certainty, lie in potential contractor performance issues. If AE WEST LLC underestimates costs, faces unforeseen site conditions, or experiences labor/material shortages, they bear the financial burden. This could lead to pressure to cut corners on quality or delays. For the government, the risk shifts to ensuring the contractor has the capacity and expertise to deliver the project successfully within the fixed price. Poor contractor performance could necessitate contract modifications or even termination, leading to delays and potentially higher costs if a new contractor is needed.

How effective is 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' in achieving competitive pricing?

'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' aims to balance competition with specific needs or limitations. By excluding certain sources, the agency might be targeting firms with specific capabilities or clearances, or perhaps responding to prior issues with excluded vendors. While it allows for competition among the remaining pool, the exclusion inherently limits the total number of potential bidders. This moderate level of competition (3 bidders) suggests that pricing was likely competitive among those considered, but it may not achieve the same level of aggressive pricing as a completely unrestricted 'full and open' competition where the entire market can participate. The effectiveness hinges on whether the excluded sources were critical to a broader competitive landscape.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army?

The provided data does not include historical spending trends for the Department of the Army on similar construction contracts. To analyze this, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like FPDS) for contracts within the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' (NAICS 236220) category awarded by the Department of the Army over several fiscal years. This analysis would reveal patterns in contract values, number of bidders, competition types, and average contract durations, helping to contextualize the current $16.9 million award.

What are the implications of the 'Definitive Contract' type for project management?

A 'Definitive Contract' is a type of contract that is fixed in price and scope, often used for services or supplies that are needed over a period. In this construction context, it implies that the project scope, specifications, and price are clearly defined upfront. This structure provides clarity for both the government and the contractor regarding deliverables and payment. It suggests that the project requirements were well-understood at the time of award, reducing ambiguity during execution. However, it also means that significant changes to the scope would likely require formal contract modifications, which can be time-consuming and may impact the overall cost and schedule if not managed carefully.

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: W912LA24B0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3112 SPRING HOLLOW CT., ANN ARBOR, MI, 48105

Business Categories: Category Business, Joint Venture Women Owned Small Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,919,275

Exercised Options: $16,919,275

Current Obligation: $16,919,275

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $1,067,424

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline