Jeffrey Carr Construction awarded $16.2M contract for commercial building construction by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,229,879 ($16.2M)

Contractor: Jeffrey Carr Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-02-11

End Date: 2011-09-15

Contract Duration: 946 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.2K/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: BASE BID

Place of Performance

Location: MANSFIELD, RICHLAND County, OHIO, 44903

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.2 million to JEFFREY CARR CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: BASE BID Key points: 1. Contract value of $16.2M for commercial and institutional building construction. 2. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a significant defense infrastructure need. 3. Contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Duration of 946 days suggests a substantial construction project. 5. The contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, implying a competitive process with specific criteria. 6. The base bid was $16,229,879, close to the final award amount.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $16.2 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration of 946 days. Benchmarking against similar Department of the Army construction projects of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor is incentivized to manage costs effectively, which can be beneficial for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which indicates a competitive bidding process was utilized, but potentially with specific pre-qualification criteria. The presence of 10 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and achieving a competitive market price.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. The multiple bids received suggest that the government obtained a fair price for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is focused on Ohio, where the contractor is based and likely where the construction will take place. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, tradespeople, and project management staff in the Ohio region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
Risk of delays if the contractor faces labor shortages or material supply chain issues.
Ensuring compliance with all construction codes and environmental regulations requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Multiple bids received indicate a competitive market and potential for good value.
Contractor is based in Ohio, potentially supporting local economic development.
The project duration suggests a comprehensive and well-planned construction effort.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for federal construction contracts is substantial, driven by the need for infrastructure, facilities, and operational spaces across various government agencies. The Department of the Army is a significant consumer of construction services, often requiring specialized facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction awards by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of buildings.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract, nor does it detail subcontracting plans. As the contract was awarded under full and open competition, it is likely that large businesses were the primary bidders. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any small businesses were involved as subcontractors and to assess the overall impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance, quality, and compliance. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, where the contractor is liable for delivering the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Federal Building and Facilities Construction
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to fixed-price nature
Risk of project delays
Need for robust contract oversight

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.2 million to JEFFREY CARR CONSTRUCTION, INC.. BASE BID

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JEFFREY CARR CONSTRUCTION, 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 $16.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-02-11. End: 2011-09-15.

What is the track record of Jeffrey Carr Construction, Inc. with federal contracts?

Information regarding Jeffrey Carr Construction, Inc.'s specific track record with federal contracts is not detailed in the provided data. However, the award of a $16.2 million contract by the Department of the Army suggests they have the capacity and qualifications to handle significant government projects. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would reveal their past performance ratings, other awarded contracts, and any history of disputes or performance issues. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and experience as a federal contractor.

How does the $16.2 million award compare to similar construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The $16.2 million award for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army is a substantial sum, indicative of a significant project. To benchmark this value, one would need to compare it against other construction contracts of similar scope (e.g., new building construction, renovation of institutional facilities) awarded by the Army or other Department of Defense branches over a comparable period. Factors such as geographic location, specific building type (e.g., barracks, administrative offices, training facilities), and contract duration would need to be considered for a precise comparison. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents exceptional value or is within the expected range.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract, from the government's perspective, are related to potential cost overruns if the contractor underestimated project complexities, scope creep if changes are not managed rigorously, and contractor default or poor performance. For the contractor, the risks include underestimating costs, encountering unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, and labor availability issues, all of which could erode profit margins or lead to losses. Effective risk mitigation relies on thorough initial planning, robust contract administration, clear change order processes, and diligent oversight of the contractor's performance and financial stability.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method for ensuring competitive pricing in construction?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with the need for specific capabilities. By excluding sources, the agency likely pre-qualified a set of responsible and capable contractors, ensuring that bids received are from entities that can realistically perform the work. This can lead to more realistic bids and reduce the risk of award to an unqualified bidder. While it narrows the field compared to unrestricted full and open competition, if the exclusion criteria are justified and the remaining pool of bidders is sufficiently competitive (as suggested by 10 bids here), it can still yield competitive pricing and good value for the government. The key is that the exclusion criteria are not unduly restrictive.

What is the historical spending pattern for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army are typically substantial, reflecting the ongoing need to maintain, upgrade, and expand its vast infrastructure. This spending fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. The Army, often through the Army Corps of Engineers, awards numerous contracts annually for various construction types, ranging from barracks and training facilities to administrative buildings and specialized operational structures. Analyzing historical data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) would reveal trends in contract volume, average award values, and dominant contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-reimbursement) within this category.

What are the implications of the 946-day duration for this construction project?

A duration of 946 days (approximately 2.6 years) for a commercial and institutional building construction project indicates a significant undertaking. This extended timeline suggests the project likely involves substantial scope, such as new construction of a large facility, complex renovations, or construction in challenging conditions. It allows for phased construction, integration of specialized systems, and potentially more thorough quality control. From a taxpayer perspective, a longer duration can mean sustained economic activity through employment and material sourcing over an extended period. However, it also implies a longer commitment of government oversight resources and potential exposure to market fluctuations over the project's life.

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: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W9136409B0001

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4164 ERIE AVE SW, MASSILLON, OH, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,229,879

Exercised Options: $16,229,879

Current Obligation: $16,229,879

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline