JFHQ CONSTRUCTION contract awarded to CTA Construction Company for $26M, spanning over 3 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,957,842 ($26.0M)

Contractor: CTA Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-27

End Date: 2014-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,373 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: JFHQ CONSTRUCTION

Place of Performance

Location: HANSCOM AFB, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01731

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.0 million to CTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: JFHQ CONSTRUCTION Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm-fixed-price structure, though detailed cost breakdowns are not provided. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. Contract duration of over 3 years presents some performance risk if issues arise. 4. This contract falls within the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Army, indicating a significant defense-related infrastructure need. 6. The contract's fixed-price nature shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $26 million over three years for construction services is within a typical range for large-scale projects. Without specific project details or comparable benchmarks for similar JFHQ facilities, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the scope is well-defined. However, the absence of detailed cost breakdowns or performance metrics makes it difficult to definitively benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar government contracts.

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 a bid. The presence of four bidders (no) suggests a reasonable level of competition for this construction project. A competitive process generally allows for price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria used are not provided, but the open competition is a positive sign.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this construction contract helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. It provides assurance that the selected contractor offers a competitive price for the required services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel and support staff who will utilize the JFHQ facility. The contract delivers construction services for a Joint Force Headquarters facility, contributing to national defense infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the construction, likely within Massachusetts given the state code. The project will likely involve a significant number of construction workers, impacting the local labor market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 3 years) could lead to scope creep or cost escalation if not managed tightly.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess contractor efficiency and effectiveness post-award.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to lower quality if the contractor seeks to cut costs to maintain profit margins, especially if oversight is weak.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, protecting the government from unexpected expenses.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, implying a clear line of responsibility for project completion.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220), a significant segment of the construction industry. This sector encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings such as offices, public administration buildings, and other institutional facilities. Federal spending in this area is often driven by infrastructure modernization, new facility requirements, and upgrades to existing government buildings. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against the cost per square foot for similar government or private sector construction projects in the same geographic region.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large-value construction contract awarded under full and open competition, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were mandated within the contract terms, though the prime contractor may voluntarily engage them. The absence of a small business set-aside means that large businesses were the primary focus of the competition, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small construction firms on this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives (CORs) within the Department of the Army. Given the nature of construction, on-site inspections, progress reviews, and adherence to specifications would be key oversight mechanisms. Accountability is primarily driven by the firm-fixed-price terms, where deviations from scope or quality could lead to penalties or non-payment. Transparency would be enhanced by public contract data, but detailed project management documentation is usually internal.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Federal Buildings Fund

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Potential for quality compromise in fixed-price contracts without strong oversight

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.0 million to CTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. JFHQ CONSTRUCTION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CTA 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 $26.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-27. End: 2014-02-28.

What was the specific scope of work for the JFHQ construction project?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for the JFHQ construction project beyond it being categorized under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220). Typically, such projects involve the ground-up construction or significant renovation of facilities intended to house Joint Force Headquarters operations. This could include administrative offices, command and control centers, training areas, and support facilities. A comprehensive understanding of the scope would require access to the original contract statement of work (SOW), which would outline architectural requirements, building specifications, site preparation, utility connections, and any specialized security or technological infrastructure needed for a JFHQ.

How does the awarded price compare to similar JFHQ construction projects?

Benchmarking the $26 million award for the JFHQ construction against similar projects is challenging without more specific data. Factors influencing cost include project size (square footage), complexity of design, geographic location (labor and material costs), security requirements, and the specific year of award relative to inflation. A typical approach would involve comparing the cost per square foot or cost per facility user. Given this was awarded in 2010, inflation and market conditions since then would need to be considered for contemporary comparisons. Without access to a database of comparable JFHQ construction projects with detailed cost breakdowns, a precise comparison is not feasible from the provided summary data.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate CTA Construction Company's performance on this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate CTA Construction Company's performance on this contract. For construction projects, common KPIs often include adherence to schedule (on-time completion), adherence to budget (staying within the fixed price), quality of workmanship (meeting specifications and building codes), safety record (incident rates), and compliance with contractual terms. Since this is a firm-fixed-price contract, meeting the defined scope and quality standards within the agreed price is paramount. Performance evaluations would likely involve site inspections, progress reports, and potentially post-occupancy reviews.

What is the historical spending trend for JFHQ construction by the Department of the Army?

The provided data only includes details for a single contract award. To analyze historical spending trends for JFHQ construction by the Department of the Army, one would need to examine contract awards over multiple fiscal years. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for contracts categorized under relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 236220) and associated with JFHQ facilities or similar command structures, specifically filtering for the Department of the Army as the awarding agency. Analyzing trends would reveal patterns in spending levels, average contract values, and the frequency of such awards, indicating the Army's investment in this type of infrastructure over time.

Were there any significant challenges or disputes during the performance of this contract?

The provided summary data does not contain information regarding specific challenges or disputes encountered during the performance of this contract by CTA Construction Company. Contract performance issues, such as delays, scope changes, quality defects, or payment disputes, are typically documented in contract modification records, performance reports, or legal filings, none of which are included in this dataset. To ascertain if there were significant challenges, one would need to access more detailed contract administration files or official dispute resolution records associated with this specific 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: W912SV10R0001

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 60 K ST STE 3, BOSTON, MA, 02127

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,957,842

Exercised Options: $25,957,842

Current Obligation: $25,957,842

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline