Department of the Army awards $12M for administration building construction, completed on time

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,059,087 ($12.1M)

Contractor: Foreign Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-25

End Date: 2008-01-31

Contract Duration: 493 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.1 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bore the risk of cost overruns. 3. The project was completed within the original timeframe, demonstrating effective project management. 4. The contract was awarded to foreign awardees, raising questions about domestic economic impact. 5. The specific nature of the administration building's function is not detailed, limiting performance context. 6. The contract falls under the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12 million for an administration building appears within a reasonable range for construction projects of this nature, though specific benchmarks are unavailable without more detail on the building's size and complexity. The fixed-price nature of the award suggests a controlled cost environment for the government. However, the lack of detailed performance metrics or comparison data makes a definitive value assessment challenging. The contract was completed within its duration, which is a positive indicator of cost control and execution.

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 bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While competition is generally beneficial for price discovery, the specific number of bidders (two) might not represent the maximum possible competition, potentially leaving some room for price optimization.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple bidders to offer competitive pricing, potentially leading to cost savings for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely the personnel who will utilize the administration building, improving operational efficiency. The service delivered was the construction of a new administration building, providing essential infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation where the building was constructed. The contract likely supported construction-related jobs, including laborers, tradespeople, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific identity and location of 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' hinders assessment of domestic economic impact and potential national security considerations.
Limited detail on the building's specific function and scope makes it difficult to fully assess if the $12 million investment yielded optimal value for its intended purpose.

Positive Signals

The contract was completed within the specified duration, indicating effective project management and execution.
The use of a fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risks to the contractor, benefiting the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process that aimed for competitive pricing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for government building construction is substantial, with agencies frequently undertaking projects to modernize or expand facilities. Benchmarks for similar administration buildings would typically consider square footage, complexity of systems (HVAC, IT infrastructure), and location-specific labor and material costs. The $12 million award suggests a mid-sized project within this category.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, nor is there information on subcontracting plans. Given the award to 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', it is unlikely that small businesses were primary recipients of the prime contract funds. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses participated in subcontracting roles.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the fixed-price definitive contract, including adherence to specifications and completion timelines. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed public information regarding the specific project and the foreign awardees.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Lack of Awardee Identification
Foreign Awardee Status

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.1 million to FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FOREIGN 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 $12.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-25. End: 2008-01-31.

What specific type of administration building was constructed, and what were its key features?

The provided data indicates the contract was for an 'ADMINISTRATION BUILDING' under the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' (NAICS 236220) category. However, specific details regarding the building's size (e.g., square footage), number of floors, specific functional areas (e.g., offices, meeting rooms, support facilities), or specialized features (e.g., security requirements, advanced IT infrastructure) are not available in the provided data. This lack of detail limits a comprehensive understanding of the project's scope and the justification for the $12 million award.

How does the $12 million award compare to similar administration building construction projects by the Department of Defense?

Without specific details on the building's size, complexity, and location, a direct comparison of the $12 million award to similar projects is challenging. However, for context, typical costs for medium-sized administrative facilities can range significantly. Factors such as prevailing wage rates, material costs in the specific geographic region, and the inclusion of specialized systems (e.g., secure communication rooms, advanced HVAC) heavily influence final project costs. The fixed-price nature of this contract suggests that the awarded amount was deemed sufficient by the contractor to cover all anticipated costs and profit.

What were the specific risks identified for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not explicitly list identified risks for this contract. However, common risks in construction projects include cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, labor shortages, and delays due to weather or permitting issues. The contract's 'FIXED PRICE' type inherently mitigates the risk of cost overruns for the government, as the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price. The completion within the original duration (493 days) suggests that risks related to schedule delays were effectively managed.

What was the track record of the 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' prior to this contract?

The provided data identifies the awardees as 'FOREIGN AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' and offers no further information regarding their specific identity, past performance, or track record. This lack of transparency makes it impossible to assess their experience, reliability, or history with government contracts. Typically, agencies would vet potential contractors based on past performance evaluations. The undisclosed nature of these awardees prevents a thorough assessment of their suitability and potential risks associated with their engagement.

What is the significance of the contract duration (493 days) in relation to the project's scope and value?

A duration of 493 days (approximately 16 months) for a $12 million administration building construction project appears reasonable. This timeframe allows for planning, procurement of materials, construction phases, and final inspections. The fact that the project was completed within this duration, as indicated by the end date of January 31, 2008, suggests efficient project management and execution by the contractor. It implies that the initial time estimates were accurate and that significant unforeseen delays were avoided.

How does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' award mechanism impact the overall value for taxpayers?

Awarding contracts under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' is generally beneficial for taxpayers. This mechanism ensures that a wide range of potential contractors can bid on the project, fostering a competitive environment. Competition typically drives down prices as bidders strive to offer the most attractive terms. While this contract had two bidders, the open competition framework increases the likelihood that the government secured the construction services at a fair market price, thereby maximizing the value of taxpayer funds allocated to the project.

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: W917PM06R0053

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: $12,059,087

Exercised Options: $12,059,087

Current Obligation: $12,059,087

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline