Aircraft ramp repair contract awarded to Ultimate Concrete LLC for over $21.4 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,436,789 ($21.4M)

Contractor: Ultimate Concrete LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-14

End Date: 2015-01-30

Contract Duration: 1,234 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: REPAIR AIRCRAFT RAMP

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBUS, FRANKLIN County, OHIO, 43217

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.4 million to ULTIMATE CONCRETE LLC for work described as: REPAIR AIRCRAFT RAMP Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a large-scale infrastructure repair project. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate procurement strategy. 3. Contract duration of over 3 years indicates a significant, long-term need. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Geographic location in Ohio may influence local construction market dynamics. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237310 points to highway, street, and bridge construction, aligning with ramp repair.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $21.4 million for aircraft ramp repair is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale airfield infrastructure projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, given the scope implied by the dollar amount and the fixed-price nature, the pricing is likely competitive, assuming the contractor's bid reflected efficient execution. The contract's duration of over three years also suggests a significant scope of work that justifies the investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons, possibly related to specialized capabilities or prior performance. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'limited' competition level suggests fewer than a truly unrestricted full and open competition, which could impact price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the absolute lowest possible price achievable through the widest possible bidding pool. However, if the exclusions were justified and the remaining bidders were competitive, value could still be secured.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its operational units requiring functional aircraft ramps. The service delivered is the repair and maintenance of critical airfield infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation in Ohio where the repairs were conducted. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the repair project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during repair, despite fixed-price contract.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness if contractor performance falters.
Dependency on a single contractor for a critical infrastructure component.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract structure incentivizes contractor efficiency and cost control.
Contract duration suggests a stable, long-term commitment to infrastructure maintenance.
Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a significant defense-related need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically related to heavy and civil engineering construction, as indicated by the NAICS code 237310. The market for airfield construction and repair is specialized, often involving significant government contracts due to the unique requirements of military bases. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within Department of Defense infrastructure budgets and similar large-scale civil engineering projects.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests the contract was likely awarded based on overall best value rather than specific small business goals. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not explicitly mandated by the contract type. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Ultimate Concrete LLC utilizes small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to complete the work for the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project oversight details may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Airfield Pavement Repair
Military Construction Projects
Civil Engineering Contracts
Infrastructure Maintenance Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting military operations.
Ensuring contractor adherence to stringent military airfield standards.
Adequacy of competition given the 'Exclusion of Sources' clause.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.4 million to ULTIMATE CONCRETE LLC. REPAIR AIRCRAFT RAMP

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ULTIMATE CONCRETE LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-14. End: 2015-01-30.

What was the specific justification for excluding other sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The justification for excluding other sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award typically stems from specific technical requirements, unique capabilities needed, or prior performance issues with other potential contractors. For an aircraft ramp repair contract, this could involve specialized concrete formulations, rapid curing requirements, or specific experience with military airfield standards. Without access to the contract's Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) document, the precise reasons remain speculative. However, such exclusions are intended to ensure the best possible outcome for the government by focusing on contractors demonstrably capable of meeting stringent project demands, even if it limits the initial pool of bidders.

How does the awarded price of $21.4 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar aircraft ramp repair projects?

Directly comparing the $21.4 million award to industry benchmarks for similar aircraft ramp repair projects is challenging without detailed project specifications (e.g., square footage, type of repair, specific materials, location). However, large-scale airfield infrastructure projects, especially those on military installations, often command higher costs due to stringent security, environmental, and operational requirements. Factors like 24/7 operational needs, specialized safety protocols, and the need for rapid, durable repairs contribute to project expenses. While $21.4 million is a significant sum, it is not necessarily indicative of poor value if the scope of work is extensive and complex, involving substantial structural repairs, resurfacing, or drainage system upgrades across a large ramp area.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project of this nature and duration?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a multi-year infrastructure project like aircraft ramp repair, is that the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. If the contractor underestimates costs, encounters unforeseen site conditions (e.g., subsurface issues, unexpected material degradation), or experiences significant labor or material price increases, their profit margin will shrink, or they could incur a loss. Conversely, the government benefits from cost certainty. However, there's a potential risk that the contractor might cut corners on quality or scope to protect their profit, necessitating robust government oversight to ensure contract compliance and adherence to specifications.

What is the historical spending pattern for aircraft ramp repair at this specific military installation or within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for aircraft ramp repair at this specific installation or within the Department of the Army requires access to historical contract databases and budget allocations. Without that specific data, it's difficult to provide a precise pattern. However, military installations typically require ongoing maintenance and periodic major repairs for their airfields due to heavy use and environmental factors. Spending on such projects can be cyclical, influenced by infrastructure condition assessments, available funding, and modernization initiatives. A significant award like $21.4 million might represent a major overhaul or replacement project rather than routine maintenance, suggesting a gap in previous major repair cycles or a planned upgrade.

What performance metrics or quality assurance measures were likely in place to ensure the successful completion of this contract?

For a contract of this magnitude and importance, robust performance metrics and quality assurance (QA) measures would undoubtedly be in place. These typically include detailed technical specifications outlining acceptable materials, workmanship standards, and performance criteria (e.g., load-bearing capacity, surface smoothness, drainage efficiency). The government would likely have a dedicated Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) or COR (Contracting Officer's Representative) on-site to monitor progress, inspect work, verify material compliance, and ensure adherence to safety regulations. Performance would be evaluated against milestones, defect resolution timelines, and final acceptance criteria, often feeding into contractor past performance evaluations for future awards.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge 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: W9136411B0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3465 LEE BLVD STE 244, EL PASO, TX, 16

Business Categories: Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,208,879

Exercised Options: $21,436,789

Current Obligation: $21,436,789

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline