Army awards $38M construction contract for AASF facility, highlighting full and open competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $38,079,660 ($38.1M)
Contractor: Bacon Construction CO Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2008-09-25
End Date: 2013-07-31
Contract Duration: 1,770 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AASF
Place of Performance
Location: NORTH KINGSTOWN, WASHINGTON County, RHODE ISLAND, 02852
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $38.1 million to BACON CONSTRUCTION CO INC for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AASF Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates a defined cost for the construction project. 3. The project duration of 1770 days points to a significant, long-term construction undertaking. 4. The contractor, Bacon Construction Co Inc, has secured a substantial federal award. 5. The contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major federal entity.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of approximately $38 million for the construction of a new AASF facility appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale. Without specific benchmarks for AASF construction costs, a direct comparison is difficult. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the initial pricing was determined through a competitive process, which typically drives value. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per functional unit against similar military construction projects.
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. The presence of 4 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant construction project. A competitive bidding process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.
Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition for this $38 million contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and performance proposals.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel who will utilize the new AASF facility. The contract delivers the construction of a new Aviation Support Facility, crucial for military aviation operations. The geographic impact is localized to Rhode Island, where the facility will be constructed. The project will likely have implications for the local construction workforce, creating jobs during the construction phase.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the fixed-price nature.
- Delays in construction could impact the operational readiness of the Army unit relying on the new facility.
- Quality control during a multi-year construction project requires diligent oversight to ensure standards are met.
Positive Signals
- The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust vetting of potential contractors.
- The long project duration allows for thorough planning and execution of complex construction tasks.
Sector Analysis
The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, encompassing a wide range of projects from infrastructure to specialized facilities. This contract for an Aviation Support Facility falls within the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction. Federal construction spending is often influenced by military readiness needs, infrastructure upgrades, and agency-specific facility requirements. Benchmarks for similar military construction projects would be necessary for a precise comparison, but projects of this magnitude typically involve substantial investment.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. However, the prime contractor, Bacon Construction Co Inc, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or materials, contributing indirectly to the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring progress, quality, and compliance. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Projects
- Aviation Facilities
- Department of Defense Contracts
- Army Engineering and Construction
Risk Flags
- Long project duration increases exposure to market fluctuations and potential delays.
- Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to less contractor flexibility in addressing unforeseen issues.
- Construction projects inherently carry risks related to site conditions and material availability.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, aviation-support-facility, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, rhode-island, large-contract, military-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $38.1 million to BACON CONSTRUCTION CO INC. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AASF
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is BACON CONSTRUCTION CO 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 $38.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-09-25. End: 2013-07-31.
What is the track record of Bacon Construction Co Inc with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?
Bacon Construction Co Inc has been awarded federal contracts, including this significant $38 million award from the Department of the Army. A comprehensive review of their track record would involve examining past performance evaluations, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar large-scale construction projects. Federal procurement data systems often contain past performance information, which contracting officers use to assess a contractor's reliability and capability. Understanding their history with the DoD specifically would provide further insight into their suitability for this type of work.
How does the cost per square foot of this AASF construction compare to similar military facilities?
To benchmark the value, we would need the total square footage of the constructed AASF and compare the cost per square foot ($38,079,659.85 / square footage) to similar military aviation support facilities. Factors such as location, specific functional requirements (e.g., hangar space, maintenance areas, administrative offices), and the prevailing construction market conditions in Rhode Island at the time of award (2008) would influence this comparison. Without the square footage, a precise per-square-foot cost cannot be calculated, making direct value-for-money assessment challenging based solely on the provided data.
What are the primary risks associated with a multi-year construction project of this magnitude for the Department of the Army?
Key risks for a large-scale, multi-year construction project like this include potential cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, or scope creep, despite the firm-fixed-price contract. Schedule delays are another significant risk, which could impact operational readiness and incur additional costs. Furthermore, ensuring consistent quality control throughout the construction process and managing contractor performance over an extended period require robust oversight. Environmental compliance and adherence to evolving building codes also present potential risks that need careful management.
What is the historical spending pattern for Aviation Support Facilities by the Department of the Army?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for Aviation Support Facilities by the Department of the Army would involve reviewing past contract awards for similar structures over several fiscal years. This would help identify trends in contract values, types of competition utilized, and average project durations. Understanding this historical context can inform future budget planning, identify potential cost efficiencies, and highlight any significant shifts in procurement strategies or facility needs. Without access to a broader dataset of AASF contracts, it's difficult to establish specific historical spending patterns beyond this single award.
What are the implications of the 'RI' (Rhode Island) designation for this contract?
The 'RI' designation indicates that the construction project is located in Rhode Island. This has several implications: it dictates the specific state and local building codes and regulations that must be followed, influences the labor market from which construction workers will be drawn, and affects the logistics of material sourcing and delivery. Furthermore, the economic impact of the contract, including job creation and spending within the local economy, will be concentrated in Rhode Island. The proximity to existing military installations in the region may also be a factor in the facility's strategic placement.
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: W912LD08R0035
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 241 NARRAGANSETT PARK DR, RUMFORD, RI, 01
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $40,709,660
Exercised Options: $38,079,660
Current Obligation: $38,079,660
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-09-25
Current End Date: 2013-07-31
Potential End Date: 2013-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2013-08-15
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)