DoD's $17.8M construction contract awarded to TMS Contracting LLC/Compton Construction Inc JV shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,780,252 ($17.8M)

Contractor: TMS Contracting Llc/Compton Construction Inc JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-01-10

End Date: 2010-02-26

Contract Duration: 778 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: COMPANY OPS FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: FORT CAMPBELL, LAUREL County, KENTUCKY, 42223

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.8 million to TMS CONTRACTING LLC/COMPTON CONSTRUCTION INC JV for work described as: COMPANY OPS FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor. 3. The contract duration of 778 days indicates a substantial project scope. 4. The award was made to a joint venture, potentially indicating capacity or specialized expertise. 5. The project is located in Kentucky, with implications for regional economic impact. 6. The contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $17.8 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the government has negotiated a ceiling price, which can help control costs if managed effectively. The absence of specific performance metrics makes a detailed value assessment challenging without further context on the project's deliverables.

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 the solicitation was broadly advertised, and all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this competition type generally fosters price discovery and encourages multiple firms to compete, potentially leading to more favorable pricing for the government. The inclusion of 'after exclusion of sources' might suggest a prior limited competition phase or specific pre-qualification criteria.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive bids and achieving a fair market price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, encompassing a wide range of potential structures. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kentucky, potentially stimulating local employment and economic activity. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and support staff in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
Risk of schedule delays impacting the operational readiness of the facility.
Quality control issues could arise if oversight is insufficient, leading to long-term maintenance problems.
Contractor performance could be impacted by the joint venture structure if internal coordination is not seamless.

Positive Signals

The fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process that likely yielded competitive pricing.
The award to a joint venture may indicate a capacity to handle complex projects.
The project's location in Kentucky could provide economic benefits to the local community.
The contract duration suggests a significant and potentially impactful construction project.

Sector Analysis

The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector is a significant part of the overall construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities, including administrative buildings, barracks, research labs, and more. This contract fits within the broader landscape of federal infrastructure development, where agencies like the Department of Defense invest heavily in facilities to support their missions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar types of buildings constructed by the government or in the private sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a result, the primary contractor, a joint venture, is likely a larger entity or a combination of entities capable of undertaking a project of this magnitude. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for projects of this size, it is common for prime contractors to engage small businesses for specialized services or material supply, which could offer some indirect benefits to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance, quality, and compliance. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including payment schedules tied to milestones and potential penalties for delays or non-performance. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting military readiness.
Quality control issues if not rigorously monitored.
Contractor performance variability inherent in joint ventures.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.8 million to TMS CONTRACTING LLC/COMPTON CONSTRUCTION INC JV. COMPANY OPS FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TMS CONTRACTING LLC/COMPTON CONSTRUCTION INC JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-01-10. End: 2010-02-26.

What is the track record of TMS Contracting LLC and Compton Construction Inc. individually and as a joint venture in completing federal construction projects of similar scale and complexity?

Assessing the track record of TMS Contracting LLC and Compton Construction Inc., both individually and as a joint venture, is crucial for understanding their capacity and reliability. A review of past performance databases, such as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), would reveal any history of contract disputes, performance issues, or quality concerns. For joint ventures, it's important to examine the experience of each partner and how effectively they have collaborated on previous projects. Without specific data on their past performance, it's difficult to definitively assess their suitability for this $17.8 million project, but the award itself suggests they met the government's pre-qualification criteria at the time of bidding.

How does the awarded price of $17.8 million compare to the estimated cost or budget for this specific construction project?

The awarded price of $17.8 million represents the final negotiated cost for the construction services. To assess value for money, this figure needs to be compared against the government's independent government cost estimate (IGCE) or the initial budget allocated for the project. If the awarded price is significantly below the IGCE, it could indicate strong competition or efficient contractor bidding. Conversely, if it's close to or exceeds the IGCE, it might warrant further scrutiny regarding the accuracy of the estimate or the competitiveness of the bids received. Without access to the IGCE or budget documentation, a definitive comparison is not possible, but the 'full and open competition' suggests the price achieved is likely market-driven.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and quality assurance measures stipulated in the contract to ensure successful project completion?

Key performance indicators and quality assurance measures are vital for ensuring the successful completion of any construction project. For this Department of the Army contract, KPIs would likely include adherence to the project schedule, budget compliance, safety standards, and the quality of materials and workmanship. Quality assurance would involve regular inspections, testing of materials, and verification of compliance with design specifications and building codes. The contract's fixed-price nature implies that the contractor bears significant responsibility for meeting these standards. The effectiveness of oversight by the COR and the clarity of these contractual requirements are critical determinants of project success.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar commercial and institutional building construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Army or Department of Defense?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar construction contracts provides valuable context for evaluating the current award. The Department of the Army and the broader Department of Defense likely award numerous contracts for building construction annually. Examining trends in contract values, durations, competition levels, and pricing structures over the past several years can reveal benchmarks. For instance, understanding the average cost per square foot for similar facilities or the typical range of bids received in competitive solicitations can help determine if the $17.8 million award is within expected parameters. This historical data is essential for identifying potential outliers or confirming that the current contract represents a fair market price.

What are the potential risks associated with the joint venture structure of the prime contractor for this project?

The joint venture structure for TMS Contracting LLC/Compton Construction Inc. presents both potential benefits and risks. On the positive side, it may allow the partners to combine complementary expertise, financial resources, and bonding capacity, enabling them to pursue larger projects than they could individually. However, risks can include potential disagreements between the partners regarding project management, resource allocation, or profit sharing, which could lead to delays or disputes. Effective communication, clear governance structures, and a well-defined operating agreement are crucial for mitigating these risks. The government's oversight should also monitor the JV's operational cohesion to ensure consistent performance.

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: W912QR07R0056

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 635 FROSTY MORN DR, CLARKSVILLE, TN, 07

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,780,252

Exercised Options: $17,780,252

Current Obligation: $17,780,252

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline