DoD's $38.9M Camp Bullis construction contract awarded to Walbridge-Bartlett Cocke JV shows fair value, but limited competition data

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $38,903,853 ($38.9M)

Contractor: Walbridge-Bartlett Cocke Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-20

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,991 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DSN/BLD AFRC AT CAMP BULLIS, TX

Place of Performance

Location: LAREDO, WEBB County, TEXAS, 78041

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $38.9 million to WALBRIDGE-BARTLETT COCKE JOINT VENTURE for work described as: DSN/BLD AFRC AT CAMP BULLIS, TX Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the scope of construction services. 2. Competition was full and open, but only two bids were received, suggesting potential for improved price discovery. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Project duration was substantial, indicating a complex and long-term construction effort. 5. The contract falls within the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Army, the project supports military infrastructure at Camp Bullis, Texas.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $38.9 million for a large-scale construction project at a military installation appears to be within a reasonable range for similar projects. Benchmarking against other Department of Defense construction contracts of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which is favorable for the government. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for specific construction elements, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is the preferred method for ensuring the widest possible participation and best value. However, only two bids were received. While this still represents competition, a lower number of bidders can sometimes indicate barriers to entry, limited market capacity for such large projects, or potentially less aggressive pricing than if more firms had competed. The government's ability to secure competitive pricing is influenced by the number and quality of bids received.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with two bidders, is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to solicit the best possible pricing. However, the limited number of bids warrants attention to ensure that the government did not forgo potentially better pricing that might have emerged with a larger pool of competitors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army, gaining improved infrastructure at Camp Bullis, Texas. The project delivered essential construction services for military facilities, enhancing operational capabilities. The geographic impact is localized to Camp Bullis, Texas, supporting military training and readiness. The contract likely supported a significant number of construction jobs, both directly and indirectly, within the Texas region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition could indicate potential market constraints or barriers to entry for other qualified contractors.
The substantial duration of the contract (over 5 years) might present challenges in maintaining cost control and adapting to evolving construction technologies or material costs over time.
Lack of specific details on the construction scope makes it difficult to assess if the price reflects optimal value for the specific services rendered.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing the potential for a competitive bidding process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, protecting the government from unexpected expenses.
The contract was awarded to a joint venture, potentially leveraging specialized expertise from multiple firms.
The project supports critical military infrastructure, contributing to national defense readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of structures such as offices, schools, hospitals, and government facilities. Federal spending in this area is crucial for maintaining and upgrading government infrastructure, including military bases. The market for large-scale military construction is often dominated by a few large firms or joint ventures capable of handling the complexity, security requirements, and scale of such projects.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is a joint venture, it is unclear if this structure inherently involves small business subcontracting. Without explicit small business subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is not evident from this data alone. Further investigation into the joint venture's composition and subcontracting practices would be needed to assess its impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of Defense. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project performance and cost breakdowns may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Modernization
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited number of bids received despite full and open competition.
Contract duration exceeds five years, potentially increasing exposure to market volatility.
Lack of detailed scope information hinders precise value-for-money assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $38.9 million to WALBRIDGE-BARTLETT COCKE JOINT VENTURE. DSN/BLD AFRC AT CAMP BULLIS, TX

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WALBRIDGE-BARTLETT COCKE JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $38.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-20. End: 2012-12-31.

What was the specific scope of construction services provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' at DSN/BLD AFRC AT CAMP BULLIS, TX. However, the specific scope of work, such as the type of buildings constructed (e.g., barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings), the square footage, or the specific construction activities (e.g., new builds, renovations, infrastructure upgrades), is not detailed in the summary data. This level of detail is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the project's objectives and for accurately benchmarking its value and performance against similar construction efforts.

How does the awarded price of $38.9 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects?

Benchmarking the $38.9 million award against industry standards requires detailed project specifications. Factors like location, building type, materials used, and complexity significantly influence construction costs. For instance, cost per square foot can vary widely. Without knowing the specifics of the buildings constructed at Camp Bullis, a precise comparison is difficult. However, general construction cost indices for institutional or government buildings in Texas could provide a rough comparison. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the contractor bore cost risks, which is a positive sign for value, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the delivered construction relative to the price.

What were the primary risks identified for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The primary risks for a large-scale construction contract like this typically include cost overruns, schedule delays, quality issues, and unforeseen site conditions. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is a key mitigation strategy, as it places the financial risk of cost increases on the contractor. Other potential mitigations, though not explicitly detailed in the summary data, would likely include robust project management by the Army Corps of Engineers, detailed contract specifications, performance bonds, and regular site inspections to ensure quality and adherence to schedule. The substantial duration (1991 days, approximately 5.5 years) also presents risks related to material price fluctuations and labor availability, which the contractor would need to manage under the FFP terms.

What is the track record of Walbridge-Bartlett Cocke Joint Venture in executing similar large-scale government construction projects?

Information on the specific track record of the 'Walbridge-Bartlett Cocke Joint Venture' for this particular contract is not provided in the summary data. However, both Walbridge and Bartlett Cocke are established construction firms with experience in large projects. Walbridge has a history of significant industrial, commercial, and infrastructure projects, while Bartlett Cocke focuses on institutional and commercial construction, including significant work for government entities and educational institutions. Their joint venture likely aimed to combine their respective strengths and capacities to successfully execute this large Department of Defense project. A deeper dive into their past performance on comparable projects would offer more insight.

How has federal spending on similar construction projects at military installations evolved over time?

Federal spending on construction projects at military installations has historically fluctuated based on defense budgets, geopolitical needs, and infrastructure modernization initiatives. Programs like Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) have driven significant spending in the past. More recently, spending has focused on modernizing aging facilities, enhancing force protection, and adapting infrastructure for new technologies and mission requirements. While this specific $38.9 million contract is a single data point, broader trends show consistent, albeit variable, investment in military infrastructure to maintain operational readiness and support service members. Analyzing historical spending patterns for the Army Corps of Engineers or specific installations like Camp Bullis would reveal more detailed trends.

What are the implications of awarding a large construction contract to a joint venture versus a single entity?

Awarding a large construction contract to a joint venture (JV) like Walbridge-Bartlett Cocke can offer several advantages. JVs allow companies to pool resources, expertise, and bonding capacity, enabling them to bid on and execute projects that might be too large or complex for a single firm. This can lead to increased competition for large projects by enabling more entities to qualify. For the government, a JV can bring together specialized skills, potentially improving project execution and reducing risk. However, managing a JV can also introduce complexities in communication, decision-making, and accountability compared to a single prime contractor. The success often depends on the clear definition of roles and responsibilities within the JV agreement.

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: W912QR07R0007

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 613 ABBOTT ST, DETROIT, MI, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,903,853

Exercised Options: $38,903,853

Current Obligation: $38,903,853

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline