DoD awards $34.4M for Danbury training facility construction, highlighting firm fixed-price contract for armed forces building

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,393,646 ($34.4M)

Contractor: Korte-Fusco Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-08-31

End Date: 2013-11-26

Contract Duration: 818 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 400 MEMBER ARMED FORCES TRAINING BUILDING, UNHEATED STORAGE SHOP, AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP AT DANBURY, CT.

Place of Performance

Location: DANBURY, FAIRFIELD County, CONNECTICUT, 06810

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.4 million to KORTE-FUSCO JOINT VENTURE for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 400 MEMBER ARMED FORCES TRAINING BUILDING, UNHEATED STORAGE SHOP, AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP AT DANBURY, CT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 3. The project involves construction of a training building, storage shop, and maintenance shop. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Army, indicating a specific military need. 5. The contract duration of approximately 818 days suggests a significant construction timeline. 6. The project is located in Danbury, CT, impacting local construction workforce and economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $34.4 million for a 400-member armed forces training building, storage shop, and vehicle maintenance shop appears reasonable given the scope of construction. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure helps mitigate cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for cost control.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 12 bidders indicates a healthy level of competition for this construction project. A competitive environment generally leads to better pricing and value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this project likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

Benefits military personnel by providing essential training and maintenance facilities. Delivers critical infrastructure for armed forces readiness and operational support. Geographic impact is concentrated in Danbury, Connecticut, potentially creating local jobs. Workforce implications include opportunities for construction labor and related trades in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting readiness timelines.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions increasing costs despite fixed-price contract.
Ensuring compliance with environmental regulations during construction.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Full and open competition suggests competitive pricing.
Award to a joint venture may indicate capacity for large-scale projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. The Department of Defense is a significant client for construction services, often awarding large-scale projects for military bases and facilities. Spending in this sector is influenced by defense budgets, geopolitical needs, and infrastructure modernization efforts. Comparable benchmarks would involve analyzing other military construction projects of similar size and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is a joint venture, it is unclear if they have subcontracting plans that would include small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement and its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific project oversight details may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Armed Forces Training Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of construction delays impacting project timelines.
Ensuring adequate quality control throughout the construction process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.4 million to KORTE-FUSCO JOINT VENTURE. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 400 MEMBER ARMED FORCES TRAINING BUILDING, UNHEATED STORAGE SHOP, AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP AT DANBURY, CT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KORTE-FUSCO 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 $34.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-08-31. End: 2013-11-26.

What is the track record of KORTE-FUSCO JOINT VENTURE on similar Department of Defense construction projects?

A review of federal procurement data indicates that KORTE-FUSCO JOINT VENTURE has been awarded multiple contracts, primarily within the construction sector, for various government agencies including the Department of Defense. Their project history includes a range of construction types, from infrastructure development to building construction. Specific details on their performance, including any past issues or commendations on similar-sized military construction projects, would require a deeper dive into contract performance reports and agency evaluations. However, their presence as a joint venture on a significant project like this suggests they possess the necessary experience and capacity to handle complex military construction requirements.

How does the awarded price of $34.4 million compare to similar armed forces training building construction projects?

Benchmarking the $34.4 million award requires comparing it to projects with similar scope, size (400-member capacity), and location. Factors like prevailing construction costs in Connecticut, specific building requirements (e.g., specialized training facilities), and the inclusion of storage and maintenance shops influence the overall cost. Without access to a detailed cost breakdown or a database of comparable, recently awarded military construction projects, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a facility of this nature, the price appears within a reasonable range, especially considering the firm fixed-price nature which aims to lock in costs. Further analysis would involve examining cost per square foot or cost per member trained for similar DoD facilities.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

While a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide cost certainty, risks remain. For the government, the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise, though quality assurance measures should mitigate this. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating project costs, encountering unexpected site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), or experiencing significant labor or material price escalations, all of which could lead to financial losses if not adequately planned for. Delays due to weather, permitting, or supply chain disruptions also pose risks that can impact project completion and potentially incur penalties or require contract modifications.

How effective is the full and open competition process in ensuring value for this type of construction project?

The full and open competition process is generally considered highly effective in ensuring value for large construction projects like this. By allowing all qualified contractors to bid, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that 12 bids were received suggests robust market interest and a good opportunity for the Department of the Army to select the best value proposal, considering both price and technical factors. This level of competition minimizes the risk of overpayment and increases the likelihood that the government secures high-quality construction services at a fair market price.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar armed forces training facilities by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending by the Department of the Army on armed forces training facilities is substantial and fluctuates based on military readiness needs, troop levels, and modernization initiatives. Over the past decade, significant investments have been made in upgrading and expanding training infrastructure across various installations. Spending patterns are influenced by strategic defense reviews, global deployments, and the lifecycle of existing facilities. While specific figures for 'armed forces training buildings' are aggregated within broader military construction categories, consistent funding is allocated annually to ensure facilities meet evolving training requirements. This contract represents a portion of that ongoing investment.

Are there any specific performance concerns or positive indicators related to the contractor's past performance on similar contracts?

Assessing specific performance concerns or positive indicators for KORTE-FUSCO JOINT VENTURE requires access to detailed contract performance reports (CPARS) and agency evaluations, which are not fully available in the provided data. However, the award of a significant firm fixed-price contract by the Department of the Army suggests that the agency found their past performance, technical capabilities, and capacity to be satisfactory for this project. Joint ventures are often formed for large projects, indicating a collaborative approach that can leverage the strengths of multiple entities. Without specific CPARS data, it's presumed the contractor met the necessary performance thresholds for award.

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: W912QR11R0040

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12441 US HWY 40, HIGHLAND, IL, 62249

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,393,646

Exercised Options: $34,393,646

Current Obligation: $34,393,646

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 266

Total Subaward Amount: $189,869,937

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline