DoD's $20.2M Unit Training Equipment Contract with Nauset Construction: Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $20,228,071 ($20.2M)
Contractor: Nauset Construction Corporation
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2013-09-30
End Date: 2017-05-22
Contract Duration: 1,330 days
Daily Burn Rate: $15.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 7
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: UNIT TRAINING EQUIPMENT SITE (UTES), DATE SIGNED ON THE CAR WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE DATE SIGNED ON AWARD DOCUMENT IN EDA IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES: A) FAR 4.606, REPORTING DATA B) FPDS-NG DATA VALIDATION DOCUMENT COMPETITION (APRIL 27, 2010) - J5.5 AGENCY SPECIFIC VALIDATIONS, 1A (PIID), SERIAL NUMBER 4 WHICH STATES "IF THE TRANSACTION IS AN INITIAL AWARD OF AN IDC, THEN POSITIONS 7 AND 8 OF THE PIID MUST BE EQUAL TO THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE DATE SIGNED.
Place of Performance
Location: BUZZARDS BAY, BARNSTABLE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02542
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $20.2 million to NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION for work described as: UNIT TRAINING EQUIPMENT SITE (UTES), DATE SIGNED ON THE CAR WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE DATE SIGNED ON AWARD DOCUMENT IN EDA IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES: A) FAR 4.606, REPORTING DATA B) FPDS-NG DATA VALIDATION DOCUMENT COMPETITION (APRIL 27, 2010) - J5.5 AGENC… Key points: 1. The contract was awarded to Nauset Construction Corporation for Unit Training Equipment Site (UTES). 2. It was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 3. The contract value is $20,228,070.57. 4. The contract was signed in FY2013 and completed in FY2017. 5. The sector is Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $20.2M for UTES appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. However, without specific details on the scope of work and comparable project costs, a precise pricing assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded using full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive bidding process. This method generally promotes price discovery and ensures fair market value.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the award suggests that taxpayers likely received a fair price for the services rendered, maximizing the value of the federal investment.
Public Impact
Provides essential training facilities for military personnel, enhancing readiness and operational effectiveness. Supports the local economy through construction jobs and material procurement in Massachusetts. The project contributes to the modernization of military infrastructure. Ensures compliance with federal reporting standards for contract data.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for scope creep or change orders impacting final cost.
- Durability and long-term maintenance costs of the UTES facility are not detailed.
- Reliance on a single contractor for a significant construction project carries inherent risks.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
- Contract was completed within the specified timeframe.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type helps control costs.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, which is a significant area of federal spending, particularly for defense infrastructure. Benchmarks for similar projects would typically consider factors like square footage, complexity, and location.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not awarded to a small business (sb: false). Therefore, there was no direct benefit to small businesses from this specific award, though subcontractors may have been involved.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract data includes references to FAR and FPDS-NG data validation, suggesting adherence to federal procurement regulations and reporting requirements. However, specific oversight mechanisms during the contract execution are not detailed.
Related Government Programs
- Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Data adjustment for PIID raises minor data integrity questions.
- Lack of detailed scope of work for value assessment.
- No information on change orders or contract modifications.
- Potential for long-term maintenance costs not addressed.
- Small business participation not explicitly detailed.
Tags
commercial-and-institutional-building-co, department-of-defense, ma, definitive-contract, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $20.2 million to NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. UNIT TRAINING EQUIPMENT SITE (UTES), DATE SIGNED ON THE CAR WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE DATE SIGNED ON AWARD DOCUMENT IN EDA IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES: A) FAR 4.606, REPORTING DATA B) FPDS-NG DATA VALIDATION DOCUMENT COMPETITION (APRIL 27, 2010) - J5.5 AGENCY SPECIFIC VALIDATIONS, 1A (PIID), SERIAL NUMBER 4 WHICH STATES "IF THE TRANSACTION IS AN INITIAL AWARD OF AN IDC, THEN POSITIONS 7 AND 8 OF THE PIID MUST BE EQUAL TO THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE DATE SIGNED.
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 $20.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2013-09-30. End: 2017-05-22.
What was the specific scope of work for the Unit Training Equipment Site (UTES) and how did it compare to similar construction projects in terms of cost per square foot?
The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for the UTES. To assess value, a comparison of cost per square foot against similar military construction projects, considering regional labor costs and material prices, would be necessary. Without this granular information, it's challenging to definitively determine if the $20.2M represented optimal value.
Were there any significant change orders or contract modifications during the execution of this contract, and what was their impact on the final cost and schedule?
The data indicates the contract was signed in September 2013 and completed in May 2017, spanning over three years. While the contract was firm fixed price, the potential for change orders exists in large construction projects. Information on modifications and their financial/schedule impact is not provided, which is a key risk factor for cost overruns and delays.
How effectively did the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method ensure competitive pricing and contractor performance for this specific project?
The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method is designed to maximize competition. Its effectiveness in ensuring competitive pricing and performance for this UTES project would depend on the number and quality of bids received, the clarity of the solicitation, and the agency's evaluation process. The fact that it was completed suggests a level of performance, but the true measure of effectiveness lies in the long-term utility and cost-efficiency of the facility.
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: W912SV13R0001
Offers Received: 7
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: $20,268,071
Exercised Options: $20,228,071
Current Obligation: $20,228,071
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2013-09-30
Current End Date: 2017-05-22
Potential End Date: 2017-05-22 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-09-27
More Contracts from Nauset Construction Corporation
- Joint Force Headquarters Phase II — $20.7M (Department of Defense)
View all Nauset Construction Corporation federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)