DoD awards $133M construction contract for KC-46A maintenance hangar and trainer at March ARB

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $133,027,285 ($133.0M)

Contractor: Harper Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-18

End Date: 2028-10-07

Contract Duration: 1,115 days

Daily Burn Rate: $119.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW KC-46A TWO BAY MAINTENANCE HANGAR AND FUSELAGE TRAINER AT MARCH, ARB CA.

Place of Performance

Location: MARCH ARB, RIVERSIDE County, CALIFORNIA, 92518

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $133.0 million to HARPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW KC-46A TWO BAY MAINTENANCE HANGAR AND FUSELAGE TRAINER AT MARCH, ARB CA. Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Harper Construction Company, Inc. for a significant infrastructure project. 2. Project scope includes a new two-bay maintenance hangar and a fuselage trainer. 3. The contract is a firm-fixed-price definitive contract, indicating price certainty. 4. Duration of the contract is over three years, suggesting a complex build. 5. The project is located at March Air Reserve Base, California. 6. This award represents a substantial investment in Air Mobility Command's maintenance capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $133 million for a specialized military hangar and training facility appears reasonable given the scope and complexity. Benchmarking against similar large-scale military construction projects suggests that pricing is within expected ranges. The firm-fixed-price structure helps control costs for the government, although the initial bid price is the primary driver of value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. Four bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. This competitive process is expected to have driven a more favorable price for the government compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that typically leads to better pricing and value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command, which will gain enhanced maintenance and training capabilities for the KC-46A Pegasus aircraft. The project will deliver a critical piece of infrastructure at March Air Reserve Base, California. Geographic impact is localized to Riverside County, California, but the operational impact is national for KC-46A readiness. The construction phase will likely create numerous jobs for skilled trades and construction workers in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness timelines.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite firm-fixed-price.
Dependence on specialized construction firms for complex military infrastructure.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract helps mitigate cost uncertainty.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bid process.
Awarded to a single contractor, Harper Construction Company, Inc., potentially streamlining project management.
Project duration is clearly defined, allowing for structured planning and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, specifically focusing on specialized military infrastructure. The market for constructing large-scale, specialized facilities like aircraft hangars is competitive, with a mix of large general contractors and specialized subcontractors. The value of this contract is significant within the context of military base construction, reflecting the high standards and specific requirements for aerospace facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not specify any small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is Harper Construction Company, Inc., there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business participation is mandated or encouraged through subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army contract will likely be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or a designated contracting officer's representative. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award announcements and public contract databases.

Related Government Programs

KC-46A Pegasus Aircraft Procurement
Military Airfield Infrastructure Projects
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Air Mobility Command Readiness Initiatives

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Contractor performance risk on complex military infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $133.0 million to HARPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW KC-46A TWO BAY MAINTENANCE HANGAR AND FUSELAGE TRAINER AT MARCH, ARB CA.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $133.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-18. End: 2028-10-07.

What is the track record of Harper Construction Company, Inc. with large federal construction projects, particularly military facilities?

Harper Construction Company, Inc. has a history of performing federal construction projects, including work for the Department of Defense. While specific details on their track record with KC-46A related facilities require deeper investigation into their past performance evaluations and project portfolio, their selection for this significant contract suggests they meet the necessary qualifications and experience. A review of their contract history, including any past performance issues or commendations, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability for complex military infrastructure development. Their experience with similar-sized projects and adherence to stringent military construction standards are key indicators of their capability.

How does the $133 million cost compare to similar KC-46A maintenance hangar projects?

Benchmarking the $133 million cost requires comparing it to recently awarded contracts for similar KC-46A maintenance hangars or comparable large aircraft maintenance facilities. Factors such as size (square footage), specific equipment included (like the fuselage trainer), location (which impacts labor and material costs), and the specific requirements of the Air Mobility Command will influence the price. Without direct comparable data for KC-46A hangars, we can look at large military hangar construction projects. Generally, such specialized facilities can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. The firm-fixed-price nature of this contract suggests the government sought cost certainty, and the competitive bidding process should have yielded a price reflective of market conditions for such specialized construction.

What are the primary risks associated with constructing a specialized military hangar and training facility?

Key risks include potential construction delays due to unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, environmental concerns), weather disruptions, and supply chain challenges for specialized materials or equipment. For a firm-fixed-price contract, the primary risk to the government is ensuring the contractor's ability to deliver within budget, which hinges on the contractor's accurate initial estimation and project management. There's also a risk related to the integration of specialized training equipment, ensuring it functions as intended within the facility. Furthermore, adherence to stringent military specifications and security protocols adds complexity. The contractor's experience and robust project planning are crucial for mitigating these risks.

How effective is a firm-fixed-price contract in managing costs for complex construction projects like this?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is generally considered effective for managing costs in complex construction projects when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are understood. It shifts the primary cost risk to the contractor, who is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to be efficient and manage resources effectively. However, if the initial scope is poorly defined or unforeseen issues arise that necessitate significant changes, the FFP structure can lead to costly change orders or disputes. For this KC-46A hangar, the FFP contract provides a high degree of cost certainty for the government, assuming the initial design and specifications were comprehensive.

What is the historical spending trend for similar military construction projects at Air Force bases?

Historical spending on military construction projects at Air Force bases, particularly for aircraft maintenance and training facilities, has been substantial and varies significantly based on the type and size of the aircraft, as well as the base's strategic importance. Major hangar constructions, especially those accommodating new or upgraded aircraft fleets like the KC-46A, often represent multi-million dollar investments. Trends show a consistent need for modernization and expansion of infrastructure to support evolving aviation technology and operational requirements. Spending is influenced by defense budgets, geopolitical priorities, and the lifecycle of existing facilities. Analyzing past budgets for similar projects can provide context for the $133 million award, indicating whether it aligns with historical investment patterns for comparable infrastructure.

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: W912QR24R0034

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2241 KETTNER BLVD STE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92101

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $134,449,375

Exercised Options: $133,027,285

Current Obligation: $133,027,285

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline