NACO Border Patrol Station Construction Contract Awarded for $34.2M to Jeffrey C. Stone, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,227,925 ($34.2M)

Contractor: Jeffrey C. Stone, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-08-31

End Date: 2012-11-08

Contract Duration: 800 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: NACO BORDER PATROL STATION

Place of Performance

Location: NACO, COCHISE County, ARIZONA, 85620

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.2 million to JEFFREY C. STONE, INC. for work described as: NACO BORDER PATROL STATION Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a specific reason for limiting initial bidders. 2. The project falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a sector with significant taxpayer investment. 3. The award value of $34.2M is substantial for a single station construction project. 4. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The duration of the contract was 800 days.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $34.2M for a border patrol station construction project needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess its fairness. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparable project costs, a definitive assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The competition method 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were initially excluded. This could impact price discovery by potentially limiting the number of competitive bids received.

Taxpayer Impact: The final price of $34.2M represents a significant taxpayer investment. The effectiveness of the competition method in securing the best value for taxpayer funds is a key consideration.

Public Impact

Construction of critical infrastructure for border security. Potential impact on local economies through job creation and material sourcing. Ensuring the efficient and cost-effective use of taxpayer funds for government facilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Limited competition method raises questions about potential price inflation.
  • Lack of detailed cost breakdowns makes value assessment difficult.
  • Contract awarded to a single entity without clear justification for source exclusion.

Positive Signals

  • Firm Fixed Price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
  • Project addresses a national security need.
  • Contract duration is defined.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is characterized by varying levels of competition and cost efficiency depending on project type and location. Border infrastructure projects often involve unique logistical and security considerations that can influence costs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a stated factor in this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were available to small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would focus on ensuring the construction meets specifications, stays within budget, and adheres to the contract timeline. Accountability rests with the Department of the Army to manage the contractor and verify deliverables.

Related Government Programs

  • Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

  • Limited competition raises concerns about potential price inflation.
  • Lack of transparency regarding source exclusion.
  • Need for detailed cost benchmarking to validate value.
  • Potential for cost overruns if oversight is insufficient, despite fixed-price contract.

Tags

commercial-and-institutional-building-co, department-of-defense, az, definitive-contract, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.2 million to JEFFREY C. STONE, INC.. NACO BORDER PATROL STATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JEFFREY C. STONE, 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 $34.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-08-31. End: 2012-11-08.

What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources prior to the 'full and open competition' phase, and how did this impact the final contract price?

The justification for excluding sources prior to the 'full and open competition' phase is not detailed in the provided data. This exclusion could have limited the number of potential bidders, potentially leading to a higher contract price than if all qualified sources had been allowed to compete from the outset. Further investigation into the contract's award documentation is necessary to understand the rationale and its financial implications.

How does the $34.2M contract value compare to industry benchmarks for similar border patrol station construction projects, considering the project's scope and location in Arizona?

Benchmarking the $34.2M contract value requires detailed cost data for comparable border patrol stations, including size, materials, security features, and site preparation costs in similar geographic regions. Without this granular data, it's difficult to definitively assess if the price is competitive. The firm fixed-price nature suggests cost risk is on the contractor, but the initial award price's fairness remains a key question.

What measures were in place to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the construction process, given the significant investment and the firm fixed-price contract type?

Effectiveness and efficiency under a firm fixed-price contract are typically ensured through robust contract management, clear performance standards, and regular progress monitoring by the contracting officer. The Department of the Army would be responsible for overseeing the contractor's adherence to the schedule, quality of work, and overall project completion. The 800-day duration suggests a substantial project requiring diligent oversight to prevent delays and cost overruns.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ConstructionNonresidential Building ConstructionCommercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIESCONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912PL10R0036

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3333 E CAMELBACK RD STE 122, PHOENIX, AZ, 85018

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,227,925

Exercised Options: $34,227,925

Current Obligation: $34,227,925

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2010-08-31

Current End Date: 2012-11-08

Potential End Date: 2012-11-08 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2020-10-03

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending