J.E. Dunn Construction awarded $40.7M for Battalion Headquarters & Company Operations facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,722,115 ($40.7M)

Contractor: J. E. Dunn Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-22

End Date: 2010-08-01

Contract Duration: 678 days

Daily Burn Rate: $60.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BATTALION HEADQUARTERS & COMPANY OPERATI

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEAVENWORTH, LEAVENWORTH County, KANSAS, 66027

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.7 million to J. E. DUNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: BATTALION HEADQUARTERS & COMPANY OPERATI Key points: 1. Contract awarded at a competitive price point, indicating potential value for money. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust market response and potential for cost savings. 3. Fixed-price contract structure shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of nearly two years requires careful monitoring of schedule adherence. 5. Geographic concentration in Kansas may indicate regional construction market dynamics. 6. No small business set-aside suggests large prime contractor involvement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $40.7 million for Battalion Headquarters & Company Operations facilities appears reasonable given the scope of construction. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction projects of this scale would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

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 offers. The presence of 13 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood of selecting the best value proposal for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

Military personnel stationed at the facility will benefit from modern operational spaces. Construction services delivered will result in new or upgraded military infrastructure. Geographic impact is concentrated in Kansas, supporting local construction jobs and businesses. Workforce implications include employment for construction laborers, tradespeople, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for schedule delays given the project duration and complexity of military construction.
Ensuring compliance with all military construction standards and specifications.
Monitoring contractor performance to ensure quality and timely delivery.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract mitigates cost escalation risk for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a strong market offering and competitive pricing.
Experienced prime contractor likely selected through a rigorous evaluation process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of critical infrastructure for various government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar military facility constructions across different regions and over time.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no small business participation (sb: false). This suggests that the prime contractor, J.E. Dunn Construction Company, is a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in fulfilling parts of this contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction
Construction Services

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule overruns
Risk of cost escalation (though mitigated by FFP)
Quality control during extended construction period

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.7 million to J. E. DUNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. BATTALION HEADQUARTERS & COMPANY OPERATI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is J. E. DUNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $40.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-22. End: 2010-08-01.

What is the track record of J.E. Dunn Construction Company with the Department of Defense?

J.E. Dunn Construction Company has a significant history of working with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Their portfolio includes numerous projects involving the construction and renovation of military facilities, barracks, training centers, and administrative buildings. This extensive experience suggests a familiarity with the unique requirements, security protocols, and construction standards mandated by military branches. Their past performance data, often available through federal procurement databases, would provide specific insights into their on-time delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work on previous government contracts. This contract award likely reflects their established reputation and proven capability in executing large-scale defense construction projects.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar military construction projects?

The awarded amount of $40.7 million for Battalion Headquarters & Company Operations facilities needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess its value. Factors such as project size (square footage), complexity, location, and the specific types of facilities being constructed (e.g., barracks vs. administrative buildings) significantly influence costs. A comparison with other Department of Defense construction contracts awarded within the last few years for similar scope and scale in comparable geographic regions would be informative. For instance, if similar projects averaged $350-$450 per square foot, and this project falls within that range, it suggests reasonable pricing. Conversely, if it's significantly higher or lower, further investigation into the specifics of the scope and competition would be warranted.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?

The primary risk associated with this firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor, J.E. Dunn Construction Company, bears the financial responsibility for any cost overruns that may occur during the project. While this shifts risk away from the government, it can incentivize the contractor to cut corners on quality or safety if they encounter unforeseen difficulties or miscalculate costs. For the government, risks include potential schedule delays if the contractor struggles with performance, or disputes arising from differing interpretations of the contract's scope or specifications. Effective oversight and proactive communication are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the project's successful completion according to the agreed-upon terms and quality standards.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring cost savings for this type of construction?

Full and open competition is generally highly effective in ensuring cost savings for construction projects like this one. By allowing all responsible contractors to bid, the government maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. The presence of 13 bidders in this case suggests a robust market response, which typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award. This competitive pressure encourages efficiency and innovation from bidders seeking to offer the most attractive price-quality combination. While the lowest bid doesn't always equate to the best value, the competitive process itself is a powerful tool for achieving cost efficiencies and preventing inflated pricing that might occur in less competitive scenarios.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army reveal a consistent and substantial investment in infrastructure. The Army regularly procures services for building new facilities, renovating existing structures, and maintaining operational readiness across numerous installations. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on geopolitical needs, modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. Analyzing past contract awards for Battalion Headquarters and Company Operations facilities, or similar troop housing and support structures, would show average contract values, typical durations, and common contract types (e.g., FFP, cost-plus). This data helps establish a baseline for evaluating current contract awards and identifying any significant deviations that might warrant further scrutiny.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (678 days) on project management and oversight?

The contract duration of 678 days (approximately 22 months) for this construction project has several implications for project management and oversight. A longer duration necessitates sustained attention from contracting officers, project managers, and quality assurance personnel to ensure consistent progress and adherence to specifications. It increases the window for potential risks, such as material price fluctuations, labor availability issues, or unforeseen site conditions, to emerge. Effective oversight will require regular progress meetings, detailed site inspections, and proactive risk management strategies. The contractor must maintain momentum over this extended period, and the government must ensure adequate resources are allocated for continuous monitoring to prevent scope creep or performance degradation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912DQ07R0013

Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: JE Dunn Construction Group Inc (UEI: 007836448)

Address: 929 HOLMES ST, KANSAS CITY, MO, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $40,722,115

Exercised Options: $40,722,115

Current Obligation: $40,722,115

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DQ08D0052

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline