DoD's $14.3M Lewisville AFRC construction contract awarded to LEETEX/HILL & WILKINSON III LLC in 2009

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,279,447 ($14.3M)

Contractor: Leetex/Hill & Wilkinson III LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-08

End Date: 2011-08-30

Contract Duration: 721 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: LEWISVILLE AFRC --- PROJECT NO.: 141843

Place of Performance

Location: LEWISVILLE, DENTON County, TEXAS, 75077

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.3 million to LEETEX/HILL & WILKINSON III LLC for work described as: LEWISVILLE AFRC --- PROJECT NO.: 141843 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for construction services, indicating a need for facility development or upgrades. 2. The contract was competed on a full and open basis, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of 721 days points to a significant construction project. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the price was set at the time of award, transferring some risk to the contractor. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, this contract falls under defense infrastructure spending. 6. The project was located in Texas, impacting local construction markets and workforce.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $14.3 million for commercial and institutional building construction is a substantial investment. Benchmarking this against similar Department of Defense construction projects would be necessary to fully assess value for money. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the initial bid was considered competitive, but long-term value depends on the quality of work and adherence to schedule. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar scope projects, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition' procurement method, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a broad range of offers, potentially driving down costs and ensuring quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the completed facility. The contract delivers essential construction services for a significant infrastructure project. The geographic impact is localized to Lewisville, Texas, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy. The project likely involved a substantial construction workforce, including skilled trades and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during construction, despite the firm-fixed-price contract.
Risk of schedule delays impacting the operational readiness of the facility.
Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the longevity and functionality of the asset.
Contractor performance history and past issues with similar projects would be a key concern.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The project addresses a clear need for facility development within the Department of Defense.
The duration indicates a significant and potentially complex construction undertaking.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as government facilities, offices, and public institutions. The Department of Defense is a significant client for construction services, with substantial annual spending on infrastructure projects globally. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects awarded by various branches of the armed forces.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically mandated for small businesses through a set-aside program. However, the prime contractor may still engage small businesses as subcontractors based on their own procurement strategies and the availability of specialized services. The absence of a small business set-aside means the primary competition was open to all eligible firms, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses to act as prime contractors on this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant contracting command within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would include contract performance monitoring, quality assurance inspections, and adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts
Federal Building and Facility Construction
Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns
Risk of schedule delays
Quality control concerns
Contractor performance history

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.3 million to LEETEX/HILL & WILKINSON III LLC. LEWISVILLE AFRC --- PROJECT NO.: 141843

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LEETEX/HILL & WILKINSON III 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 $14.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-08. End: 2011-08-30.

What was the specific nature of the construction work performed under contract number 141843 at Lewisville AFRC?

The contract, identified by Project No. 141843 for Lewisville AFRC, was awarded under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, which pertains to Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. While the specific details of the construction are not provided in the abbreviated data, this NAICS code typically covers the construction of non-residential buildings such as office buildings, government facilities, and other institutional structures. Given it's for an Air Force Readiness and Command Center (AFRC), the project likely involved the construction of new facilities, renovation of existing structures, or infrastructure development to support the operational needs of the base. This could include administrative buildings, hangars, training facilities, or support infrastructure.

How does the awarded amount of $14.3 million compare to similar construction projects for the Department of Defense?

The awarded amount of $14.3 million for this construction project is a moderate sum within the context of Department of Defense (DoD) infrastructure spending. The DoD undertakes a vast array of construction projects, ranging from small renovations to multi-billion dollar base expansions. For a single building or a significant component of a facility, $14.3 million is a substantial investment. However, when compared to major military construction projects, such as new aircraft carrier facilities, large-scale barracks complexes, or advanced research laboratories, it falls into a mid-range category. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze the scope, size, and complexity of other DoD construction contracts awarded around the same period (2009-2011) for similar types of facilities and geographic locations.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a construction project of this duration?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are designed to provide cost certainty for the government by locking in the price at award. However, for a construction project lasting 721 days (approximately two years), there are inherent risks. The primary risk for the government is that the contractor may have underestimated costs, leading to potential quality compromises to maintain profitability, or the contractor may seek change orders for unforeseen issues. Conversely, the risk for the contractor is that unforeseen cost increases (e.g., material price escalation, labor shortages, unexpected site conditions) could significantly erode profit margins or lead to financial losses. Effective oversight, clear contract specifications, and robust risk management by the contracting officer are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure successful project completion within the agreed-upon price.

What does the number of bidders (5) suggest about the competition for this specific contract?

Having five bidders for this construction contract suggests a moderate level of competition. In federal contracting, a higher number of bids generally indicates greater interest and a more competitive market, which can lead to better pricing and quality for the government. While five bidders is not exceptionally high, it demonstrates that the opportunity was visible and attractive enough to draw multiple qualified firms. The 'full and open competition' designation means that the process was designed to encourage broad participation. The quality of the bidders and the rigor of the evaluation process are also critical factors; a few highly qualified bidders can be more beneficial than many unqualified ones. Without knowing the specific requirements and the pool of potential contractors, it's difficult to definitively say if five bidders represent optimal competition, but it's a reasonable number.

How has the Department of the Army's spending on commercial and institutional building construction evolved since this contract was awarded in 2009?

The Department of the Army's spending on commercial and institutional building construction has likely fluctuated significantly since 2009, influenced by factors such as global security needs, budget appropriations, and infrastructure modernization priorities. Following the major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, there may have been a shift in focus towards domestic infrastructure and readiness. Budgetary constraints, sequestration, and evolving military requirements can all impact the volume and type of construction projects undertaken. To analyze this evolution accurately, one would need to examine historical spending data for NAICS code 236220 and related construction categories awarded by the Department of the Army over the past decade, looking for trends in total spending, average contract values, and the number of contracts awarded.

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: W912QR09R0057

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6301 GASTON AVE STE 570, DALLAS, TX, 90

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,279,447

Exercised Options: $14,279,447

Current Obligation: $14,279,447

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline