Army awards $10.9M for Ft. Dix training facility design and construction
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,924,318 ($10.9M)
Contractor: OAK Group, Inc. the
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-12-12
End Date: 2012-03-31
Contract Duration: 1,936 days
Daily Burn Rate: $5.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: AWARD FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FACILITY AT FT. DIX, NJ
Place of Performance
Location: FORT DIX, BURLINGTON County, NEW JERSEY, 08640
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $10.9 million to OAK GROUP, INC. THE for work described as: AWARD FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FACILITY AT FT. DIX, NJ Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, indicating defined scope and cost. 3. Project duration is 1936 days, spanning over 5 years, suggesting a long-term commitment. 4. The contractor, OAK GROUP, INC., is relatively new to federal contracting based on available data. 5. The project is located in New Jersey, potentially impacting local construction workforce and economy. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The award amount of $10.9 million for a training facility is difficult to benchmark without specific details on the facility's size, scope, and complexity. The firm fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty for the government, but the value for money depends heavily on the contractor's execution and the final delivered product. Further analysis would require comparing this cost to similar training facilities constructed in the same timeframe and region, considering factors like square footage, specialized training equipment, and site preparation requirements.
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,' which is a specific procurement method. While it indicates an initial intent for broad competition, the 'exclusion of sources' clause suggests that certain potential bidders may have been excluded for specific reasons, possibly related to pre-qualification or specific technical requirements. The number of bidders (4) is moderate, and the competition level appears adequate for a project of this nature, likely contributing to price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple bids, which can lead to lower prices and better value. The exclusion of sources, however, warrants scrutiny to ensure it was justified and did not unduly limit competition.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new Combined Arms Collective Training Facility. The facility will provide essential training infrastructure for soldiers, enhancing combat readiness. The project's geographic impact is concentrated in Fort Dix, New Jersey, potentially creating local jobs during construction. The construction phase will likely involve a skilled labor force, including tradespeople and project managers. The long-term impact includes improved military training capabilities and operational effectiveness for the Army.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method requires further investigation to ensure it was justified and did not limit fair competition.
- The contractor, OAK GROUP, INC., appears to have limited federal contracting history, which could present execution risks.
- The long project duration (1936 days) increases the potential for cost overruns or scope creep if not managed effectively.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating an effort to solicit a wide range of potential contractors.
- The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating the risk of unexpected price increases.
- The project is for a critical military training facility, aligning with the Department of Defense's mission objectives.
Sector Analysis
The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building, is a significant part of the U.S. economy. Federal spending in this area often involves large-scale infrastructure projects for various government agencies. This contract for a training facility fits within the broader category of defense construction, which is a specialized segment requiring adherence to stringent military standards and security protocols. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing costs of similar military training facilities or barracks construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal entities.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, small businesses would have participated as potential prime contractors only if they met the qualifications for full and open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless OAK GROUP, INC. voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. As a definitive contract, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. The firm fixed-price nature and defined duration provide a framework for performance monitoring.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Projects
- Training Facilities
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts
- Army Facilities Management
Risk Flags
- Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
- Contractor's potentially limited federal contracting experience.
- Long project duration increases risk of delays and cost overruns.
- Need for detailed cost-benefit analysis to confirm value for money.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, construction, firm-fixed-price, definitive-contract, full-and-open-competition, new-jersey, fort-dix, training-facility, large-project
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $10.9 million to OAK GROUP, INC. THE. AWARD FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FACILITY AT FT. DIX, NJ
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is OAK GROUP, INC. THE.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $10.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-12-12. End: 2012-03-31.
What is the track record of OAK GROUP, INC. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?
Based on the provided data, OAK GROUP, INC. is listed as the contractor for this award. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases would be necessary to ascertain their full track record. However, the limited information available suggests this might be one of their more significant federal engagements, or potentially an early one. A comprehensive review would involve examining past performance on similar projects, contract values, and any reported issues or successes. Understanding their experience with large-scale construction, especially for military facilities, is crucial for assessing project risk and likelihood of successful completion within budget and schedule.
How does the cost per square foot of this training facility compare to similar projects awarded by the Department of the Army?
The provided data does not include the square footage of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, making a direct cost-per-square-foot comparison impossible. To perform this analysis, one would need to obtain the facility's specifications, including its total area. Subsequently, this figure would be divided into the award amount ($10.9 million) to derive a cost per square foot. This metric could then be benchmarked against similar training facilities or barracks projects awarded by the Department of the Army or other military branches in the same geographic region and timeframe. Factors such as specialized training equipment, site complexity, and security requirements would need to be considered for a fair comparison.
What are the specific risks associated with the 'exclusion of sources' clause in this 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award?
The 'exclusion of sources' clause, while still operating under the umbrella of 'full and open competition,' indicates that certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded from the bidding process. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed in the provided data but could stem from pre-qualification requirements, specific technical expertise needed, or other criteria deemed necessary by the procuring agency. The primary risk is that this exclusion might have inadvertently limited the pool of qualified bidders, potentially leading to less competitive pricing or a reduced selection of innovative solutions. It is essential to ensure that the exclusion was justified, documented, and served a legitimate government purpose to avoid perceptions of unfairness or reduced value for taxpayers.
What is the expected effectiveness of the new training facility in enhancing soldier readiness, and how is this measured?
The effectiveness of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility in enhancing soldier readiness is primarily an operational concern for the Department of the Army. While the contract focuses on the design and construction, the facility's ultimate value lies in its ability to simulate real-world combat scenarios and provide realistic training environments. Effectiveness is typically measured through soldier performance metrics during training exercises conducted within the facility, feedback from training instructors, and ultimately, the improved combat effectiveness of units utilizing the facility. The Army would likely have specific training objectives and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with the facility's use, which are separate from the construction contract itself.
How has federal spending on military construction projects in New Jersey trended over the past decade?
Analyzing historical federal spending on military construction projects in New Jersey would require accessing and aggregating data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or agency budget reports. This would involve filtering for contracts awarded to military construction projects within the state over the last ten years. Trends could reveal an increase or decrease in investment, identify major projects, and highlight the types of facilities being prioritized. Such an analysis would provide context for the $10.9 million award for the Ft. Dix training facility, indicating whether it represents a significant investment or a continuation of established spending patterns in the region.
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: W912QR06R0092
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 200 FEDERAL ST STE 300, CAMDEN, NJ, 08103
Business Categories: Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $10,924,318
Exercised Options: $10,924,318
Current Obligation: $10,924,318
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-12-12
Current End Date: 2012-03-31
Potential End Date: 2012-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-07-14
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)