Nauset Construction awarded $20.7M for Joint Force Headquarters Phase II by the Department of Defense

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,745,827 ($20.7M)

Contractor: Nauset Construction Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-22

End Date: 2014-06-13

Contract Duration: 995 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS PHASE II

Place of Performance

Location: HANSCOM AFB, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01731

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.7 million to NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION for work described as: JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS PHASE II Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of a headquarters facility construction. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate procurement strategy. 3. Definitive contract type indicates a flexible agreement for a project with evolving needs. 4. Firm fixed price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 5. Project duration of 995 days aligns with typical construction timelines for large facilities. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a specific military need.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $20.7 million for the Joint Force Headquarters Phase II construction project appears to be within a reasonable range for a facility of this nature. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building construction projects, the cost per square foot would need to be assessed for a precise value-for-money determination. However, the firm fixed price contract type suggests that the contractor has assumed the majority of the cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was procured under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded prior to the solicitation. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated in the provided data, but the 'limited' competition level suggests that the price discovery might not have been as robust as with a truly unrestricted full and open competition. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the justification for such limitations.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through unrestricted competition. Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the narrowed pool of potential bidders.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the military personnel and units that will utilize the Joint Force Headquarters facility. The project delivers essential infrastructure for command and control operations. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the construction, likely within Massachusetts given the contractor's state. The construction project will likely create jobs in the construction sector, benefiting skilled trades and related industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type raises concerns about potential limitations on competitive pricing.
The definitive contract type, while flexible, can sometimes lead to scope creep if not managed tightly.
Lack of specific details on the number of bidders makes it difficult to fully assess the competitive landscape.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed price contract provides cost certainty and transfers risk to the contractor.
The project addresses a critical infrastructure need for joint military operations.
The contract duration appears adequate for a project of this scale.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant part of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, often requiring specialized facilities. The market for large-scale military construction is competitive, but often involves specific security and logistical requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large military facility construction projects.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, Nauset Construction Corporation, would determine its own subcontracting strategy, which may or may not involve small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and relevant program management offices within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed price contract, requiring delivery of the specified facility. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific project oversight details are not provided here. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Joint Force Headquarters Construction
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Potential for scope creep with definitive contract type.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.7 million to NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS PHASE II

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-22. End: 2014-06-13.

What is the track record of Nauset Construction Corporation with the Department of Defense?

Information regarding Nauset Construction Corporation's specific track record with the Department of Defense is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance, one would need to review their past contract history with the DoD, including any performance evaluations, past performance questionnaires, and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. A thorough review would involve searching federal procurement databases for previous awards and their associated performance metrics. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively comment on their reliability and past success with similar government projects.

How does the $20.7 million contract value compare to similar Joint Force Headquarters construction projects?

A direct comparison of the $20.7 million contract value for Joint Force Headquarters Phase II requires access to a database of similar construction projects, including their size (square footage), complexity, location, and the year of award. The provided data lacks these comparative metrics. However, for a facility of this nature, the value suggests a substantial construction undertaking. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable projects, normalize for inflation and regional cost differences, and then compare the cost per square foot or per functional unit. The firm fixed price nature of this contract implies that the contractor has priced the project comprehensively, including anticipated costs and profit.

What are the primary risks associated with a definitive contract for facility construction?

Definitive contracts, while offering flexibility, carry inherent risks, particularly in construction. One primary risk is scope creep, where the project's requirements may expand beyond the initial agreement, potentially leading to cost overruns if not managed through contract modifications. Another risk relates to the contractor's ability to adapt to evolving requirements efficiently. For the government, the risk lies in ensuring that the flexibility afforded by the definitive contract does not lead to a lack of clear deliverables or uncontrolled cost escalation. Effective project management, clear communication, and robust change control processes are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply for price discovery?

The procurement method 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded before the solicitation was issued. This exclusion narrows the competitive field from the outset. The implication for price discovery is that the resulting price may not reflect the absolute lowest possible cost achievable if all potential sources had been allowed to compete. The justification for excluding sources is critical; if based on legitimate technical or capability requirements, the impact on price discovery might be minimal. However, if the exclusions were arbitrary or poorly justified, it could lead to reduced competition and potentially higher prices for the government.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data over several fiscal years. This data would allow for the identification of trends in contract values, types of facilities procured, average contract durations, and the typical range of competition levels. Without specific historical data, it's impossible to provide a detailed analysis. However, it is generally understood that the Department of the Army invests significantly in infrastructure, and spending patterns can fluctuate based on geopolitical needs, modernization efforts, and budget allocations. Understanding these patterns helps in assessing the reasonableness of current contract awards.

What are the potential implications of the firm fixed price contract type on project quality?

A firm fixed price (FFP) contract type generally incentivizes the contractor to control costs and deliver the project within the agreed-upon budget. This can indirectly benefit quality by encouraging efficient construction practices. However, in some scenarios, an aggressive focus on cost containment under an FFP contract could potentially lead to compromises in quality if the contractor seeks to reduce expenses by using lower-cost materials or cutting corners. Robust government oversight, clear quality assurance specifications in the contract, and thorough inspection processes are essential to ensure that quality is maintained despite the cost-driven nature of the FFP agreement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912SV11R0001

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10 KEARNEY RD STE 307, NEEDHAM, MA, 02494

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,745,827

Exercised Options: $20,745,827

Current Obligation: $20,745,827

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline