DoD's $22.8M Ft. Campbell construction contract awarded to United Builders Group-Sundt, a joint venture

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,825,995 ($22.8M)

Contractor: United Builders Group-Sundt, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-03-31

End Date: 2016-02-29

Contract Duration: 700 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP SUPPORT BATTALION, FT. CAMPBELL, KY

Place of Performance

Location: FORT CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN County, KENTUCKY, 42223

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.8 million to UNITED BUILDERS GROUP-SUNDT, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP SUPPORT BATTALION, FT. CAMPBELL, KY Key points: 1. The contract value of $22.8 million for construction services appears reasonable given the scope of a Group Support Battalion facility. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price suggests a clear understanding of project requirements and cost control. 4. Performance context is tied to military infrastructure development, a critical but often complex sector. 5. This contract falls within the broader Defense sector, specifically focusing on construction and facilities management.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $22.8 million for the construction of a Group Support Battalion facility at Ft. Campbell, KY, seems aligned with typical military construction projects of this scale. Benchmarking against similar projects for barracks or support facilities would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed significant cost risk, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar square footage and complexity, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

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 while the competition was broad, certain sources were initially excluded before the final award. The presence of 14 bids suggests a robust competitive environment. A high number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, benefiting the government by driving down costs and ensuring quality.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. It ensures that the government is receiving services at a price reflecting market conditions and contractor efficiency.

Public Impact

Military personnel and support staff at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, will benefit from improved facilities. The contract delivers construction services for a Group Support Battalion, enhancing operational readiness. The geographic impact is localized to Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, supporting regional economic activity through construction. The project likely involved a significant construction workforce, providing employment opportunities in the skilled trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the fixed-price nature.
Ensuring timely completion within the 700-day duration is critical to avoid impacting unit readiness.
Quality control and adherence to military construction standards require diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract shifts significant cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a strong likelihood of selecting a qualified and cost-effective bidder.
The definitive contract type provides flexibility for task orders within the established scope.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. The defense sector represents a significant portion of government construction spending, often involving large-scale, complex projects with stringent security and operational requirements. Benchmarks for similar military facility construction can vary widely based on location, specific functional requirements, and prevailing market conditions. The $22.8 million award is substantial, reflecting the complexity and scale typical of military infrastructure development.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is a joint venture, the subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime's procurement strategy. Without explicit set-aside goals or reported subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large construction projects often generate downstream opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices at Ft. Campbell. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, with penalties for non-performance or delays. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may be internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Facilities and Base Infrastructure
Defense Construction Projects
Group Support Battalion Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring adherence to stringent military construction quality standards.
Contractor performance and financial stability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.8 million to UNITED BUILDERS GROUP-SUNDT, A JOINT VENTURE. IGF::OT::IGF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP SUPPORT BATTALION, FT. CAMPBELL, KY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNITED BUILDERS GROUP-SUNDT, A 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 $22.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-03-31. End: 2016-02-29.

What is the track record of United Builders Group-Sundt, A Joint Venture, on similar federal construction contracts?

Assessing the track record of United Builders Group-Sundt, A Joint Venture, requires examining their past performance on federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense and for similar construction types. Information on contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or litigation would be crucial. A joint venture's performance is often a composite of its individual members' capabilities and past successes. Analyzing their experience with firm fixed-price contracts, project timelines, and budget adherence on comparable military construction projects would provide insight into their reliability and capability to execute this specific contract successfully.

How does the awarded price of $22.8 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar military construction projects?

To benchmark the $22.8 million award, one would compare it against the cost per square foot or per bed (if applicable) for similar military construction projects, such as barracks, administrative buildings, or support facilities, completed around the same time period and in similar geographic regions. Data from the General Services Administration (GSA) or industry cost estimating databases (e.g., RSMeans) can provide baseline figures. Factors like site conditions, specific structural requirements (e.g., blast resistance), and specialized systems (HVAC, IT infrastructure) significantly influence costs. A detailed comparison would involve analyzing the project's scope, size, and complexity against these benchmarks to determine if the awarded price represents good value for money.

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

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract, despite shifting cost risk to the contractor, include potential for contractor default or bankruptcy, especially if initial cost estimates were overly optimistic or unforeseen site conditions significantly increase expenses. Delays in project completion are another risk, which can impact military operational readiness and incur additional costs for the government if extended. Quality control is also a concern; the contractor might be tempted to cut corners to maintain profitability, necessitating rigorous government inspection and oversight. Furthermore, scope creep, if not managed tightly through change order processes, can lead to cost increases despite the fixed-price nature.

How effective are the oversight mechanisms for ensuring the successful completion of this construction project?

The effectiveness of oversight mechanisms for this construction project hinges on the diligence of the Department of the Army's contracting officer's representative (COR) and project management team. Key oversight functions include regular site inspections to ensure adherence to plans, specifications, and quality standards; monitoring the contractor's progress against the schedule; reviewing and approving payment requests; and managing any necessary change orders. Robust communication channels between the government and the contractor, coupled with a clear understanding of contractual obligations and performance metrics, are essential. The presence of a dedicated on-site presence and the utilization of standardized reporting tools can significantly enhance oversight effectiveness.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction projects at Ft. Campbell or within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar construction projects at Ft. Campbell or within the Department of the Army provides context for the $22.8 million award. This involves examining annual budgets allocated for military construction, the number and average value of contracts awarded for facilities like support battalions or barracks over the past 5-10 years. Trends might reveal increasing or decreasing costs due to inflation, changes in military requirements, or shifts in procurement strategies. Understanding these patterns helps assess whether the current contract's value is consistent with historical investment levels or if it represents a significant deviation, potentially indicating changes in project scope, market conditions, or efficiency.

What are the implications of the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award type on cost and quality?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award type suggests a competitive process was initiated broadly, but certain potential bidders were disqualified or excluded before the final selection. While 'full and open' generally promotes competition, the 'exclusion of sources' element requires scrutiny. If the exclusions were based on legitimate technical requirements or past performance issues, the competition might still yield good results. However, if exclusions were arbitrary, it could limit competition and potentially lead to higher prices or reduced quality. The fact that 14 bids were received indicates substantial interest, suggesting that the exclusions did not unduly stifle competition, likely resulting in a reasonable balance between cost and quality.

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: W912QR13R0047

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6300 CHAPEL HILL RD STE 120, RALEIGH, NC, 27607

Business Categories: Category Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,825,995

Exercised Options: $22,825,995

Current Obligation: $22,825,995

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline