Hensel Phelps Construction Co. awarded $76M for BCT1 Barracks, a significant investment in military infrastructure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $76,016,286 ($76.0M)
Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction CO.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-08-30
End Date: 2008-09-30
Contract Duration: 762 days
Daily Burn Rate: $99.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: BCT1 BARRACKS
Place of Performance
Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79906
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $76.0 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. for work described as: BCT1 BARRACKS Key points: 1. The contract value represents a substantial commitment to facility upgrades. 2. Competition dynamics for this large-scale construction project are crucial for ensuring fair pricing. 3. Performance risk is moderate given the fixed-price nature of the contract. 4. The project's timeline of approximately two years provides a benchmark for similar construction efforts. 5. This contract falls within the broader Defense sector's infrastructure spending. 6. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the government.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $76 million for barracks construction appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests an effort to establish cost certainty, which is generally positive for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This competitive process is expected to drive pricing towards market rates and encourage efficiency from the winning contractor. The presence of multiple bidders suggests a healthy market for this type of construction service.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower prices and better quality services.
Public Impact
Service members will benefit from modernized barracks facilities. The project delivers essential construction services for military housing. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation in Texas. The construction project will likely create numerous jobs in the local and regional workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price.
- Schedule delays could impact troop readiness if not managed effectively.
- Quality control issues could arise in large-scale construction projects.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
- Experienced contractor likely selected through competitive bidding.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction, with a focus on military infrastructure. The Department of Defense is a major client for large-scale construction projects, and spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs and troop housing requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other barracks or military facility construction contracts awarded by the DoD.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a large contractor, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Hensel Phelps utilizes small business subcontractors for specialized work or materials.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, with penalties for non-performance or delays. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details might be limited.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Family Housing Construction
- Defense Infrastructure Projects
- Barracks Modernization Programs
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
- Risk of schedule delays impacting military readiness.
- Quality assurance challenges in large-scale construction.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, construction, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, military-infrastructure, barracks, texas, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $76.0 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.. BCT1 BARRACKS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $76.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-08-30. End: 2008-09-30.
What is Hensel Phelps Construction Co.'s track record with the Department of the Army for similar construction projects?
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. has a significant history of working with the Department of the Army and other federal agencies on large-scale construction projects. Their portfolio includes numerous barracks, training facilities, and other infrastructure developments. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts, particularly those involving barracks construction, would reveal their ability to deliver projects on time and within budget. Past performance reviews and contract close-out data from federal procurement databases can provide insights into their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to contract terms. A review of their award history would likely show a pattern of successful project completion, though specific details on any past issues or disputes would require deeper investigation.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or initial budget for the BCT1 Barracks project?
The provided data does not include the estimated cost or initial budget for the BCT1 Barracks project, making a direct comparison impossible. The awarded amount of $76,016,286 is the final contract value determined through the full and open competition process. To assess value for money, this figure would ideally be compared against pre-solicitation estimates, independent government cost estimates, or budgets allocated for similar barracks construction initiatives. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to ascertain if the contract was awarded at a premium, a discount, or precisely at the anticipated market rate. Future analysis could involve seeking this budgetary information through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or by examining related budget documents.
What are the key risk indicators associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for barracks construction?
The primary risk indicator for a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a large construction project like barracks, is the potential for contractor claims or change orders if unforeseen site conditions, design issues, or scope changes arise. While FFP aims to transfer risk to the contractor, significant deviations from the original plan can lead to disputes and cost increases. Another risk is the contractor's financial stability and capacity to manage such a large project; a default could lead to significant delays and re-procurement costs. Schedule risk is also present, as delays can impact military readiness and incur additional costs. Quality control is another area of concern; ensuring the constructed barracks meet all specifications and standards requires diligent government oversight.
What is the historical spending pattern for barracks construction by the Department of the Army?
Historical spending on barracks construction by the Department of the Army is substantial and cyclical, often driven by military force structure changes, aging infrastructure, and modernization initiatives. The Army consistently invests billions of dollars annually in military construction (MILCON), a significant portion of which is allocated to troop housing, including barracks. Spending patterns are influenced by congressional appropriations, strategic defense priorities, and the condition of existing facilities. Periods of increased deployment or troop surges may necessitate rapid construction or upgrades, while periods of drawdown might see reduced investment. Analyzing historical data reveals trends in contract values, types of construction, and geographic distribution of spending, highlighting the ongoing need for modern and adequate barracks.
How does the number of bidders (4) influence the price discovery and potential value for taxpayers?
Having four bidders in a full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude generally indicates a healthy level of competition. A larger number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery, as each competitor strives to offer the most competitive price to win the contract. With four bidders, the government has a reasonable basis for comparison to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. If the bids were widely spread, it might suggest differing interpretations of the scope or varying cost structures among the firms. Conversely, if the bids were very close, it could indicate a well-defined scope and a highly competitive market. In this scenario, four bidders likely provided sufficient competition to drive the price down and ensure taxpayers receive good value, assuming the evaluation process was thorough.
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: TWO STEP
Solicitation ID: W9126G06R0002
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Hensel Phelps Construction CO (UEI: 063322085)
Address: 8322 CROSS PARK DR, AUSTIN, TX, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $76,016,286
Exercised Options: $76,016,286
Current Obligation: $76,016,286
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9126G06D0039
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-08-30
Current End Date: 2008-09-30
Potential End Date: 2008-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-09-17
More Contracts from Hensel Phelps Construction CO.
- 200112!000146!9700!ZD47 !pentagon Renovation Management !mda94701c2001 !A!N!*!N! !20010918!20121129!791702194!791702194!063322085!n!hensel Phelps Construction CO !4437 Brookfield Corporate !chantilly !va!20151!61672!013!51!pentagon !arlington !virginia !+000145000000!n!n!000000000000!y300!restoration Activities !C2 !construction !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !233320!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!L!2!003!B! !D!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- C103157: Surgery, Radiology, and Laboratory Medicine (srlm) Building Construction — $756.4M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ECB3 Base BID — $711.3M (Department of Defense)
- Zone 1 Tyndall AFB, FL — $650.0M (Department of Defense)
- Award Construction Contract for Repair of Administrative Spaces, Various Locations, Oahu, Hawaii — $378.7M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)