DoD's $12.5M prime power contract awarded in 2006 shows fixed-price structure with limited transparency on awardees

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,476,048 ($12.5M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-07-16

End Date: 2008-05-31

Contract Duration: 685 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER Key points: 1. The contract utilized a fixed-price structure, which typically shifts cost risk to the contractor. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a broad market solicitation. 3. The contract duration of 685 days indicates a medium-term project. 4. The lack of specific awardee details limits a direct assessment of contractor performance. 5. The project falls under commercial building construction, a common sector for federal procurement. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major DoD component.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of specific awardee information and detailed scope of work. The fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, but without comparable projects or detailed cost breakdowns, assessing true value-for-money is difficult. The initial award amount was approximately $12.5 million, which for a prime power design and construct project in 2006, appears within a reasonable range for its time, but requires more context for a definitive assessment.

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 two bids suggests that while the competition was open, the number of actual bidders was limited. This level of competition can be beneficial for price discovery, but the specific number of bidders (two) might not represent the full competitive potential of the market.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bids, generally promotes competitive pricing, which is favorable for taxpayers by potentially driving down costs compared to less competitive solicitations.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its operational readiness, through the provision of essential prime power infrastructure. The services delivered include the design and construction of prime power systems, crucial for military installations. The geographic impact is likely localized to the specific military installation where the prime power system was installed. Workforce implications would include construction labor and specialized technical personnel required for the design and build phases.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific awardee and their track record.
Limited insight into the detailed scope of work and specific performance metrics.
The 'undisclosed' nature of domestic awardees raises questions about accountability and public interest.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a commitment to market-based procurement.
Fixed-price contract type generally aims to provide cost certainty for the government.
The contract was for a critical infrastructure component (prime power).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically focusing on commercial and institutional building construction, with a specialization in power systems. The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services, particularly for infrastructure development and facility upgrades at military bases and other federal sites. The market for prime power solutions is specialized, involving engineering, design, and construction expertise to ensure reliable energy supply, often in demanding environments.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract is not discernible from the provided data, and it does not appear to have been a primary focus for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed price. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed nature of the awardee and the lack of detailed public reporting on performance metrics or final costs beyond the initial award amount.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Federal Energy Infrastructure Procurement
Prime Power System Contracts
Commercial Building Construction Services

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Transparency
Limited Performance Data
Potential for Cost Overruns (inherent in fixed-price if scope poorly defined)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-16. End: 2008-05-31.

What was the specific scope of work for the 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER' contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER' (d: "DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PRIME POWER"). This generally implies that the contractor was responsible for both the engineering design and the physical construction of a prime power system. Such systems are critical for providing a primary source of electrical power, often involving generators, associated switchgear, fuel systems, and distribution infrastructure. The exact specifications, capacity, and location would have been detailed in the contract's statement of work, which is not fully available in the provided summary data. The duration of 685 days suggests a project of moderate complexity and scale.

How does the $12.5 million award amount compare to similar federal prime power contracts awarded around 2006?

Comparing the $12.5 million award amount for this prime power design and construct contract to similar federal contracts from 2006 is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of historical federal procurements with detailed project scopes. However, for a significant infrastructure project like a prime power system for a military installation, $12.5 million would represent a substantial investment. Factors influencing cost include the required power output (kW/MW), redundancy levels, fuel type, site conditions, and the specific technologies employed. Without more granular data on comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively benchmark this award as high, low, or average, but it signifies a significant procurement.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract for a design and construct project?

Fixed-price contracts, while offering cost certainty to the buyer, can introduce several risks, particularly for complex design and construct projects. If the scope of work is not perfectly defined upfront, the contractor may face unforeseen costs during design or construction, potentially leading to change orders or disputes. Conversely, if the contractor significantly underestimates costs, they may cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability. For the government, the risk lies in potentially paying a premium price to account for the contractor's risk contingency, or facing delays and quality issues if the contractor struggles. Effective project management and clear specifications are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' status imply for accountability and transparency?

The 'undisclosed' status of domestic awardees is a significant concern for accountability and transparency. While specific company names might be withheld for proprietary reasons in some contexts, for federal contracts, especially those involving significant public funds, transparency is paramount. Undisclosed awardees make it difficult for the public, oversight bodies, and even other government agencies to track contractor performance, assess past performance on future bids, or identify potential conflicts of interest. This lack of disclosure hinders the ability to conduct thorough post-award analysis and ensure that taxpayer money is being spent effectively and responsibly.

How does the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code relate to this specific contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction,' is a broad category that encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings. While this contract involves designing and constructing a 'prime power' system, which is a specialized infrastructure component, it is often integrated into or supports larger building projects on federal installations. Therefore, the NAICS code reflects the general nature of the construction activity undertaken, likely as part of facility upgrades or new construction where reliable power is essential. It signifies the project falls under the umbrella of general building construction services.

What is the significance of the contract type being a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT'?

A 'Definitive Contract' is a standard, fully negotiated contract that is awarded as a result of a competitive process or direct negotiation. In this case, it was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' (ct: "FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION"). This implies that the terms, conditions, price, and delivery schedule were all finalized and agreed upon before the contract was formally awarded. It contrasts with other contract types like indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which may have less defined scopes or quantities at the outset. The definitive nature suggests a clear understanding and commitment from both parties regarding the project's parameters.

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: W917PM06R0037

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,476,048

Exercised Options: $12,476,048

Current Obligation: $12,476,048

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline