DOD's $12.8M North Carolina building construction contract awarded to Windamir Development Inc. shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,793,859 ($12.8M)

Contractor: Windamir Development Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-04-11

End Date: 2022-12-14

Contract Duration: 1,343 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.5K/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: BASE: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28307

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.8 million to WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT INC for work described as: BASE: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of construction services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 3. The contract duration of 1343 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. Fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 5. The project is situated in North Carolina, potentially impacting local construction workforce. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, indicating a focus on larger prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The $12.8 million contract for building construction in North Carolina appears to represent fair value. While specific benchmarks for this exact type of construction are not provided, the fixed-price nature of the award helps control costs. The duration of the contract (over three years) suggests a substantial project, and the awarded amount seems aligned with typical costs for large-scale commercial or institutional building projects of this nature.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 8 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant construction project. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and achieving a competitive market rate.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the construction of a new building, likely for operational or support purposes. The project delivers essential commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, potentially stimulating the local economy. The contract implies a significant impact on the construction workforce, both directly and indirectly through related industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could introduce risks related to material price fluctuations or labor availability over time.
The absence of small business set-aside may limit opportunities for smaller firms to participate directly as prime contractors.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition generally leads to better pricing and a wider pool of qualified contractors.
The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, protecting the government.
The award to a single contractor (Windamir Development Inc.) suggests a clear line of accountability for project delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 confirms this specialization. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This contract represents a portion of the Department of Defense's investment in infrastructure and facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no subcontracting goals were specified (sb: false). This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best offer through open competition, potentially favoring larger, established construction firms. While this may not directly benefit small businesses as prime contractors, they could potentially participate as subcontractors if Windamir Development Inc. chooses to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army project management office. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Accountability rests with Windamir Development Inc. to deliver the construction project according to the terms of the firm fixed-price contract. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Construction
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
General Building Construction Services
Federal Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase exposure to market volatility.
No small business subcontracting goals specified.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.8 million to WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT INC. BASE: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT 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 $12.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-04-11. End: 2022-12-14.

What is the track record of Windamir Development Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Information on Windamir Development Inc.'s specific track record with federal contracts, especially within the Department of Defense, is not detailed in the provided data snippet. A comprehensive analysis would require examining their past performance on similar projects, including contract history, any reported issues or awards, and client feedback. Reviewing their award history in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or other government contracting databases would provide insights into their experience, reliability, and success rate in fulfilling government requirements. Understanding their past performance is crucial for assessing the risk associated with this current contract and predicting the likelihood of successful project completion.

How does the awarded price of $12.8 million compare to similar building construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Army in North Carolina?

Benchmarking the $12.8 million award against similar Department of the Army building construction contracts in North Carolina requires access to a broader dataset of comparable projects. Factors such as project size, complexity, specific building type (e.g., barracks, administrative, research facility), and the year of award significantly influence pricing. Without specific comparable contract data, it's challenging to definitively state if this price is high, low, or average. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with 8 bidders suggests that the market likely found the price to be competitive at the time of award. Further analysis would involve identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes, scope, and geographic location within a similar timeframe.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a construction project of this duration (1343 days)?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for a long-duration project like this (1343 days) lies in potential cost escalation for the contractor. While FFP shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, unforeseen increases in material prices, labor costs, or regulatory changes over a multi-year period can significantly impact the contractor's profitability or even lead to financial distress. For the government, the risk is less about cost overruns and more about potential contractor performance issues if they become financially strained. Ensuring robust contract oversight, clear specifications, and potentially including clauses for equitable adjustments under specific, predefined circumstances (though this deviates from pure FFP) can mitigate some of these long-term risks.

What is the expected effectiveness of this building construction contract in meeting the Department of the Army's operational needs?

The effectiveness of this building construction contract hinges on several factors not detailed in the provided data. Primarily, it depends on whether the constructed facility meets the specific design requirements and functional needs of the Department of the Army. This includes factors like the building's intended use (e.g., housing, training, operations support), its capacity, technological integration, and compliance with military standards. Successful project completion on time and within budget, as stipulated by the contract, is a key indicator of effectiveness. Post-occupancy evaluations and user feedback would provide the most direct measure of how well the facility serves its intended purpose and contributes to the Army's overall mission readiness.

How has the Department of Defense's spending on building construction in North Carolina trended over the past five years?

Analyzing the trend of Department of Defense (DoD) spending on building construction in North Carolina over the past five years requires access to historical procurement data. This specific contract award of $12.8 million in 2019 is a single data point. A trend analysis would involve aggregating spending data for similar NAICS codes (like 236220) awarded by the DoD or its components (including the Army) to contractors operating in North Carolina over the period from roughly 2017 to 2022. Factors influencing trends could include military base realignments, new mission requirements, aging infrastructure replacement needs, and overall defense budget allocations. Without this aggregated historical data, it's impossible to determine if spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912PM17R0021

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2005 MEREDITH PARK DR, MCDONOUGH, GA, 30253

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,192,863

Exercised Options: $12,793,859

Current Obligation: $12,793,859

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline