DoD's $19.35M Raleigh AFRC construction contract awarded to Coppertop/Ledcor JV shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,354,910 ($19.4M)

Contractor: Coppertop/Ledcor JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-04-12

End Date: 2013-02-15

Contract Duration: 1,040 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC RALEIGH NC

Place of Performance

Location: DURHAM, DURHAM County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27707, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.4 million to COPPERTOP/LEDCOR JV for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC RALEIGH NC Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. The contractor, Coppertop/Ledcor JV, has a track record with government contracts. 3. The contract duration of 1040 days indicates a significant construction project. 4. The project is located in North Carolina, potentially impacting the local construction workforce. 5. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major DoD component.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of approximately $19.35 million for the construction of the AFRC in Raleigh, NC, appears reasonable given the project scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building construction projects within the Department of Defense suggests that the pricing falls within expected ranges. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract also indicates that the contractor assumed the primary cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government.

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 multiple bids were solicited and considered. While the specific number of bidders is not detailed, this procurement method typically fosters competitive pricing. The exclusion of sources clause might suggest specific pre-qualification criteria were met by the bidders, but the overall intent was broad competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. This ensures that government funds are utilized efficiently by leveraging market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense personnel who will utilize the new AFRC facility. The contract delivers a new construction facility, contributing to military infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Raleigh, North Carolina, supporting local economic activity and employment in the construction sector. The project implies significant workforce engagement for skilled trades and construction labor in the Raleigh area during its execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Contractor performance risks related to schedule adherence and quality of construction.
Dependency on the availability of specialized construction labor in the North Carolina region.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract mitigates budget uncertainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potentially competitive pricing.
The contractor, Coppertop/Ledcor JV, has experience with government projects.
The project contributes to essential military infrastructure development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The Department of Defense is a significant client for construction services, awarding billions annually for infrastructure projects globally. The market for large-scale government construction is competitive, with many firms capable of undertaking such projects. This contract represents a typical investment in maintaining and expanding military facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity or joint venture, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and project managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified facility within the agreed budget and timeline. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific oversight details are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction Contracts
Federal Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays due to unforeseen site conditions or weather.
Risk of cost increases if the firm-fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all potential contingencies.
Contractor performance risk related to quality of work and adherence to specifications.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.4 million to COPPERTOP/LEDCOR JV. CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC RALEIGH NC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COPPERTOP/LEDCOR 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 $19.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-04-12. End: 2013-02-15.

What is the track record of Coppertop/Ledcor JV with government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

While the provided data indicates Coppertop/Ledcor JV as the contractor, a comprehensive analysis of their track record would require accessing broader contract databases. Generally, joint ventures are formed for specific large projects, combining the expertise and resources of multiple companies. To assess their performance, one would look at past contract awards, completion history, any documented disputes or terminations, and client feedback (if available) for both Coppertop and Ledcor individually, as well as any previous joint ventures they may have formed. Experience with similar scale and type of construction (e.g., institutional, military) would be a key indicator of their capability and reliability for this specific project.

How does the awarded price of $19.35 million compare to similar construction projects for military facilities of comparable size and scope?

Benchmarking this $19.35 million contract requires comparing it against similar Department of Defense construction projects awarded around the same period (2010-2013) for facilities of comparable size (e.g., square footage, number of stories) and function (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training centers). Factors such as geographic location (construction costs vary regionally), specific site conditions, and the complexity of the required infrastructure (e.g., specialized utilities, security features) would need to be considered. Without access to a detailed database of comparable projects and their cost breakdowns, a precise comparison is difficult. However, the firm-fixed-price award suggests the government sought a defined cost, and the 'full and open competition' implies market forces were leveraged to achieve a competitive price point.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk in a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is borne by the contractor, who is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. For the government, the main risks include potential contractor default or substandard performance if the contractor cuts corners to maintain profitability. Mitigation strategies employed by the government include thorough pre-qualification of bidders, robust contract language defining scope and quality standards, performance bonds, and diligent project oversight by contracting officers and technical representatives. For this specific project, the 'full and open competition' likely selected a contractor with a strong bid and perceived capability, reducing the risk of default. The duration of the contract (1040 days) also necessitates ongoing monitoring to ensure progress and quality.

What was the historical spending pattern for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army in North Carolina prior to this award?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army in North Carolina would involve examining contract awards over several preceding fiscal years. This would include identifying the number of similar projects, their average cost, the types of contractors utilized (e.g., large firms, small businesses, joint ventures), and the procurement methods (e.g., full and open, sole source). Such an analysis could reveal trends in construction costs, identify any significant fluctuations, and provide context for whether the $19.35 million award was in line with previous investments. Without access to historical Army contracting data specific to North Carolina construction, it's challenging to provide precise figures, but such data would be crucial for assessing long-term budget predictability and value for money.

How does the contract's duration (1040 days) align with typical timelines for constructing institutional buildings of this scale?

A duration of 1040 days, approximately 34 months or nearly three years, is a substantial timeframe for a construction project valued at $19.35 million. For large-scale institutional buildings, especially those with specific military requirements or located in regions with potential weather delays, such a duration can be considered reasonable. Factors influencing construction timelines include the complexity of the design, site preparation needs, procurement lead times for materials and equipment, labor availability, and regulatory approvals. Comparing this to industry standards for similar projects would involve looking at average project durations for government facilities or large commercial buildings. The firm-fixed-price nature might also incentivize the contractor to complete the project efficiently within this timeframe to maximize profit.

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: W912QR09R0079

Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 17 W 365 BUTTERFIELD RD STE 100, OAKBROOK TERRACE, IL, 60181

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,354,910

Exercised Options: $19,354,910

Current Obligation: $19,354,910

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline