Department of the Army awarded $14.7M for electrical system upgrades, with 2 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,729,350 ($14.7M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-10

End Date: 2011-07-02

Contract Duration: 752 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SITE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.7 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: SITE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Key points: 1. The contract value appears reasonable given the scope of electrical system upgrades. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 4. The project duration of 752 days indicates a significant undertaking. 5. The lack of small business set-aside is noted. 6. The award was made to domestic entities, supporting the local economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $14.7 million for a site electrical distribution system upgrade is within a typical range for such infrastructure projects. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense electrical system modernization contracts suggests this award represents fair market value. The firm-fixed-price structure further indicates that the contractor assumed the primary cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government when the scope is well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bidders suggests a competitive environment, though a higher number of bidders would typically lead to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices. The agency's decision to use full and open competition is a positive indicator of market engagement.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, driving down costs and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing for its investments.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel at the specified site, who will receive improved electrical infrastructure. The services delivered include the upgrade and modernization of the site's electrical distribution system. The geographic impact is localized to the Army installation where the work is performed. The contract supports construction and electrical trades workforce within the domestic economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope was not fully defined, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
Dependence on a limited number of bidders could impact future competition if market shrinks.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition promotes market engagement and potentially better pricing.
Award to domestic entities supports the national economy.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on electrical infrastructure. This is a critical sub-sector supporting the operational readiness of government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks for electrical system upgrades at federal installations vary widely based on size and complexity, but a $14.7 million award for a site-wide system suggests a substantial project.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements mentioned in the provided data. The absence of small business participation could mean missed opportunities to engage smaller firms in this significant infrastructure project. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to fully assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this definitive contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army project management office. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Modernization
Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Lack of small business set-aside noted

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.7 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). SITE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

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 $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-10. End: 2011-07-02.

What was the specific nature of the electrical distribution system upgrade and its intended improvements?

The provided data indicates the contract was for a 'SITE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM'. While specific details are not included, such upgrades typically involve replacing aging components, enhancing capacity to meet current and future demands, improving reliability and resilience against outages, and potentially incorporating modern safety features and energy efficiency measures. The goal is to ensure a stable and adequate power supply for the military installation's critical operations and infrastructure.

How does the $14.7 million cost compare to similar electrical system upgrades at other federal facilities?

Benchmarking $14.7 million for a site electrical distribution system upgrade requires comparing it to projects of similar scope, scale, and complexity at other federal installations. Factors like geographic location, specific site requirements (e.g., security, environmental considerations), and the extent of the upgrade (e.g., replacing main feeders vs. localized repairs) significantly influence cost. Generally, for a comprehensive site-wide upgrade at a military installation, $14.7 million represents a substantial investment, suggesting a significant scope of work. Without more detailed project descriptions for comparable contracts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but it falls within the expected range for major infrastructure modernization.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for this type of project?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise or costs escalate beyond their initial estimates. However, for well-defined projects like infrastructure upgrades, FFP is often preferred as it provides cost certainty for the government. The risk is mitigated if the contract specifications are clear, comprehensive, and if robust quality assurance and inspection processes are in place throughout the project lifecycle. The government's risk is primarily related to ensuring the contractor meets all performance and quality requirements.

What does the limited number of bidders (2) imply for the government and taxpayers?

A competition with only two bidders, while still technically competitive, suggests a potentially limited pool of qualified contractors or a market where only a few firms possess the necessary expertise and capacity for this specific type of project. This could imply less downward pressure on pricing compared to a scenario with numerous bidders. For taxpayers, it means there might have been less opportunity for aggressive price competition. However, if the two bidders were highly capable and the agency effectively negotiated the terms, the outcome could still be favorable. It warrants monitoring similar future procurements to see if the bidder pool expands or remains constrained.

What is the historical spending trend for site electrical distribution systems by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending data for site electrical distribution systems by the Department of the Army would reveal trends in investment in this critical infrastructure. Analyzing past awards for similar projects would indicate whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing over time. It could also highlight patterns in contract types, competition levels, and average contract values. Such analysis helps in forecasting future needs, budgeting, and understanding the market dynamics for these services within the Army's portfolio. Without access to specific historical spending data beyond this single award, a trend analysis is not possible.

Were there any specific performance metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) defined in the contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract. Typically, for construction and infrastructure projects, performance metrics would relate to schedule adherence, quality of work (e.g., compliance with building codes and technical specifications), safety performance, and successful system testing and commissioning. The firm-fixed-price nature implies that meeting all contract requirements is paramount. Robust government oversight and inspection would be crucial to ensure these unstated KPIs are met.

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: W917PM09R0005

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM 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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,729,350

Exercised Options: $14,729,350

Current Obligation: $14,729,350

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline