DoD's $22.9M Army Reserve Center construction contract awarded to Sheffield Korte Joint Venture shows fair competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,948,162 ($22.9M)

Contractor: Sheffield Korte Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-08-28

End Date: 2018-11-11

Contract Duration: 1,171 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/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 BOWIE, MARYLAND (WALDORF); CHARLES COUNTY ARMY RESERVE CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: WALDORF, CHARLES County, MARYLAND, 20601

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.9 million to SHEFFIELD KORTE JOINT VENTURE for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BOWIE, MARYLAND (WALDORF); CHARLES COUNTY ARMY RESERVE CENTER Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. 2. The contract value of $22.9 million falls within typical ranges for similar construction projects. 3. Performance duration of 1171 days suggests a complex and substantial construction undertaking. 4. Fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 5. The project is located in Maryland, contributing to regional economic activity and infrastructure. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting the primary competition was among larger firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $22.9 million for the construction of an Army Reserve Center appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale construction projects. While specific per-unit cost data is not provided, the overall award amount suggests a competitive bidding environment that likely drove pricing towards market rates. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract further supports value for money by capping the government's financial exposure.

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 may have been excluded based on specific criteria. With 14 bidders, the level of competition was substantial, suggesting that the pricing achieved is likely reflective of market conditions. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition with 14 bidders suggests that taxpayers benefited from a competitive process that likely resulted in a fair market price for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army Reserve personnel who will utilize the new facility. The contract delivers essential infrastructure for military readiness and training. The project's geographic impact is localized to Bowie, Maryland, and Charles County. Construction activities likely supported local and regional employment in the skilled trades and construction sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if 'Exclusion of Sources' criteria were overly restrictive, limiting true open competition.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency beyond meeting the fixed-price terms.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Significant number of bidders (14) indicates a competitive market for this type of construction.
Awarded to a joint venture, potentially leveraging specialized expertise for a complex project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities, including military installations. Benchmarks for similar projects vary widely based on size, complexity, and location, but a contract of this magnitude is typical for major facility construction.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary competition was likely among larger construction firms capable of undertaking a project of this scale. The absence of specific small business provisions means there may be limited direct impact on the small business construction ecosystem through this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

As a definitive contract awarded by the Department of the Army, oversight would typically involve contract officers, program managers, and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Army Reserve Facilities Construction
Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'Exclusion of Sources'
Lack of detailed performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.9 million to SHEFFIELD KORTE JOINT VENTURE. IGF::OT::IGF BOWIE, MARYLAND (WALDORF); CHARLES COUNTY ARMY RESERVE CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SHEFFIELD KORTE 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 $22.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-08-28. End: 2018-11-11.

What is the track record of Sheffield Korte Joint Venture in performing similar federal construction contracts?

Information on the specific track record of 'Sheffield Korte Joint Venture' requires deeper investigation into federal contract databases beyond the provided summary. Joint ventures often form for specific projects, pooling resources and expertise. To assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance on similar-sized and scoped construction projects, including on-time completion, adherence to budget (especially for fixed-price contracts), and any documented disputes or quality issues. Reviewing past performance evaluations (if available) and the history of the individual entities forming the joint venture would provide a more comprehensive picture of their capabilities and reliability in executing federal construction contracts.

How does the per-square-foot cost of this Army Reserve Center compare to other similar federal facilities?

The provided data does not include square footage or detailed cost breakdowns, making a direct per-square-foot cost comparison impossible. To perform this analysis, one would need the total construction area of the facility and a more granular cost breakdown. Subsequently, this figure could be benchmarked against per-square-foot costs of recently constructed federal buildings, particularly other military or reserve facilities, adjusting for geographic location (construction costs vary significantly by region) and building type (e.g., administrative, training, specialized). Without this detailed information, assessing the cost-effectiveness on a per-square-foot basis remains speculative.

What specific criteria led to the exclusion of certain sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The specific criteria for excluding sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award are not detailed in the summary data. Typically, such exclusions are based on predefined requirements outlined in the solicitation, which might include specific technical capabilities, past performance standards, security clearances, or adherence to particular manufacturing or material standards. Agencies may exclude sources if they fail to meet minimum qualifications, if their proposed solutions do not align with the government's needs, or if there are national security or proprietary concerns. A thorough review of the original solicitation documents and any associated justifications for source exclusion would be necessary to understand the precise reasons.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction contract. For construction projects, typical KPIs often include adherence to schedule (on-time completion), quality of workmanship (meeting specifications and standards), safety performance (incident rates), and final cost within the fixed-price ceiling. Contract close-out documentation and performance reports would usually contain information on whether these KPIs were met. Without access to these specific performance metrics, assessing the contractor's success beyond the basic award and completion status is not possible.

How has federal spending on Army Reserve Center construction evolved over the past five years, and where does this contract fit in?

Analyzing the evolution of federal spending on Army Reserve Center construction requires access to historical spending data across multiple fiscal years. This contract, awarded in 2015 for $22.9 million, represents a single data point within that trend. To understand its place, one would need to aggregate spending on similar projects (e.g., new construction, major renovations of reserve facilities) over the last five years. This would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable, and whether this contract's value is typical, high, or low compared to the average project size and total annual investment in such facilities.

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: W912QR14R0034

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 90 NE 20TH ST, LAWTON, OK, 73507

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Joint Venture Women Owned Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,413,523

Exercised Options: $22,948,162

Current Obligation: $22,948,162

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 107

Total Subaward Amount: $75,697,795

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline