DoD's $15.3M Fort Drum Design/Build Contract Awarded to Vetco Contracting Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,326,430 ($15.3M)

Contractor: Vetco Contracting Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-08-29

End Date: 2013-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,644 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/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: DESIGN/BUILD SVCS, FORT DRUM, NY

Place of Performance

Location: FORT DRUM, JEFFERSON County, NEW YORK, 13602

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.3 million to VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD SVCS, FORT DRUM, NY Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. Duration of 1644 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a focus on military infrastructure. 6. The contract was awarded in 2008, with an end date in 2013, providing historical context.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $15.3 million contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of work and market conditions at the time of award in 2008. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to control costs. Comparing it to similar design/build projects for military installations of comparable size and complexity would be necessary for a more precise value assessment. The absence of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is a specific type of competitive procurement. This suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, there might have been specific criteria or exclusions applied. The presence of two bidders (no: 2) indicates a limited but present level of competition. A higher number of bidders would typically lead to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature, even with two bidders, likely provided some leverage for the government to secure a reasonable price. However, a more robust competition with more offers could have potentially yielded greater savings for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army, receiving new or improved facilities at Fort Drum. The contract delivers design and construction services, crucial for maintaining and upgrading military infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Drum, New York, supporting military operations and personnel stationed there. The project likely involved a significant construction workforce, potentially benefiting local and regional labor markets.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition with only two bidders could indicate potential for higher pricing than a more robustly competed contract.
The 'Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand its impact on market reach.
Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the contractor's execution and overall project success.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a full and open competition process, aiming for broad market participation.
Firm Fixed Price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs for the U.S. Army at Fort Drum.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220). The federal government is a major consumer of construction services, particularly for infrastructure projects supporting defense, public services, and research. The market for large-scale design-build projects is often dominated by established firms, with competition varying based on project complexity, location, and specific requirements. Benchmarking against similar military base construction projects would provide context for the scale and nature of this award.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor may have utilized small businesses as subcontractors, which is a common practice in the construction industry to fulfill project needs and potentially meet broader federal subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, payment schedules tied to milestones, and potential penalties for non-compliance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic information on contract value, parties involved, and award type. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Design-Build Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Potential for cost overruns if contractor estimates were inaccurate under FFP
Need for clear definition of 'Exclusion of Sources' impact

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.3 million to VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC. DESIGN/BUILD SVCS, FORT DRUM, NY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-08-29. End: 2013-02-28.

What was the specific scope of the design and build services required for this Fort Drum contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'DESIGN/BUILD SVCS, FORT DRUM, NY' under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). While the exact scope isn't detailed, design/build contracts typically encompass both the architectural/engineering design phase and the subsequent construction phase for a facility. This could range from barracks, administrative buildings, training facilities, or support structures. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope was established upfront to manage costs effectively. Further details would likely be found in the contract's statement of work or performance work statement, which are not publicly available in this data snippet.

How does the $15.3 million award compare to similar military construction projects awarded around 2008?

Comparing the $15.3 million award requires context regarding the specific type and scale of construction. For instance, a new barracks complex would differ significantly in cost from a specialized training facility or a large administrative building. Projects awarded in 2008, during a period of active military engagement, might have seen higher material and labor costs. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable projects at other Army installations during the same timeframe, considering factors like square footage, complexity, and specific functional requirements. Without such comparative data, the $15.3 million figure serves as a standalone data point for this specific Fort Drum project.

What were the potential risks associated with a Firm Fixed Price contract for a design/build project of this magnitude?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract places the majority of the cost risk on the contractor. For a design/build project, potential risks include underestimation of design complexity, unforeseen site conditions, fluctuations in material and labor costs (especially over a 1644-day period), and scope creep if not managed tightly. If the contractor's initial estimates were inaccurate or if significant challenges arise, they may incur losses or attempt to cut corners, potentially impacting quality. Conversely, for the government, the primary risk is that the contractor may build contingencies into the price to cover these risks, potentially leading to a higher initial cost compared to cost-reimbursement contracts, though with greater cost certainty.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method imply for this contract?

This procurement method is somewhat nuanced. 'Full and Open Competition' generally means all responsible sources are permitted to submit an offer. However, the addition of 'After Exclusion of Sources' suggests that prior to this full and open competition, certain sources may have been excluded, possibly due to prior performance issues, specific capabilities not being met, or other pre-determined criteria. It could also imply a previous contract or specific circumstances that led to a limited initial pool before opening it up more broadly. The key takeaway is that while competition was sought, it wasn't necessarily a completely unrestricted process from the outset.

What is the significance of the contract duration (1644 days) in relation to the total award amount?

A duration of 1644 days (approximately 4.5 years) for a $15.3 million design/build contract suggests a substantial and complex undertaking. This extended timeline allows for thorough design development, potential phased construction, and integration of various building systems. The average annual spending under this contract would be roughly $3.4 million ($15.3M / 4.5 years). This duration is not unusual for large-scale construction projects, especially those involving significant design elements and potentially complex site work or integration with existing infrastructure at a military installation like Fort Drum.

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: W912QR08R0031

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 26460 NYS ROUTE 37, WATERTOWN, NY, 13601

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Labor Surplus Area Firm, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,326,430

Exercised Options: $15,326,430

Current Obligation: $15,326,430

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline