Fort Lewis infrastructure project awarded to Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors for over $20.7 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,778,325 ($20.8M)

Contractor: Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-12-29

End Date: 2011-05-12

Contract Duration: 499 days

Daily Burn Rate: $41.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BCT COMPLEX INCREMENTS 3 & 4 AT FORT LEWIS, WA

Place of Performance

Location: TACOMA, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.8 million to ALUTIIQ MANUFACTURING CONTRACTORS, LLC for work described as: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BCT COMPLEX INCREMENTS 3 & 4 AT FORT LEWIS, WA Key points: 1. The contract value of $20.7 million for construction services appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope. 2. Limited competition for this contract may have impacted the final price, potentially leading to a higher cost than a fully competed award. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which is generally positive for the government. 4. The project's focus on infrastructure at Fort Lewis suggests a direct impact on military readiness and operational capabilities. 5. The contractor, Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC, is involved in construction, aligning with the project's needs. 6. The duration of 499 days indicates a substantial construction effort.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $20.7 million for the construction of infrastructure at Fort Lewis needs further benchmarking against similar projects. Without specific details on the scope of work (e.g., square footage, type of construction), a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the award amount is substantial, suggesting a significant undertaking. The firm-fixed-price contract type is generally favorable for the government, as it caps costs, but the lack of competition could mean the price is not as optimized as it might be in a more competitive environment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not open to competition from other potential bidders. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when circumstances necessitate a rapid award. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms that typically occur in a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to a less favorable price.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without multiple offers, there is less assurance that the price reflects the lowest possible cost for the required services.

Public Impact

Military personnel and operations at Fort Lewis, WA, will benefit from improved infrastructure, potentially enhancing readiness and living conditions. The project delivers essential construction services for military facilities. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Lewis, Washington. The contract supports jobs in the construction sector, particularly in the Washington state area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer dollars.
Sole-source awards can limit opportunities for other qualified contractors to secure government work.
The substantial contract value warrants close scrutiny of project execution and cost controls.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type effectively transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs at a military installation.
The contractor is involved in a relevant industry (manufacturing and construction).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant part of the broader construction industry. The construction market is influenced by factors such as economic conditions, material costs, and labor availability. Federal spending in this sector often supports military installations, government facilities, and public infrastructure projects. Benchmarking this contract's value would require comparison with similar construction projects for military bases or large institutional buildings, considering regional cost variations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded to a small business, nor does it appear to have a specific small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific project may be limited, potentially through direct subcontracting by the prime contractor if they choose to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract means that oversight will focus on ensuring the contractor meets the defined scope, schedule, and quality standards. Transparency regarding project progress and expenditures would be subject to standard government reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Potential for cost inefficiencies due to lack of competition.
Need for robust oversight to ensure value on sole-source contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.8 million to ALUTIIQ MANUFACTURING CONTRACTORS, LLC. ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BCT COMPLEX INCREMENTS 3 & 4 AT FORT LEWIS, WA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALUTIIQ MANUFACTURING CONTRACTORS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-29. End: 2011-05-12.

What is the track record of Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC has a history of securing federal contracts, primarily within the Department of Defense. Their contract portfolio often includes construction, manufacturing, and base support services. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price construction projects would provide insight into their ability to deliver on time and within budget. A review of past performance evaluations and any documented issues or successes on previous DoD contracts would be crucial for assessing their reliability and capability for this specific Fort Lewis project. Understanding their experience with projects of similar scale and complexity is key to evaluating the risk associated with this award.

How does the $20.7 million contract value compare to similar infrastructure construction projects at military bases?

The $20.7 million contract value for infrastructure construction at Fort Lewis requires comparison with similar projects to assess its reasonableness. Factors such as the type of construction (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, utility upgrades), square footage, and specific site conditions at Fort Lewis would influence the cost. Benchmarking against projects of comparable scope and complexity awarded by the Department of the Army or other military branches in similar geographic regions would be necessary. Without access to detailed project specifications and market cost data for the period of award (2009), a precise comparison is difficult. However, $20.7 million represents a significant investment, suggesting a substantial construction effort.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for a construction project of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for a construction project of this magnitude is the potential for a suboptimal price. Without competitive bidding, the government may not achieve the most cost-effective outcome, as there is no market pressure to drive down bids. This can lead to taxpayers potentially overpaying for the services rendered. Another risk is the lack of innovation that can sometimes arise from multiple bidders proposing different approaches. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create perceptions of favoritism or limit opportunities for other qualified contractors, potentially impacting the broader contractor ecosystem. Ensuring robust oversight and clear performance metrics becomes even more critical in sole-source situations.

What is the expected impact of these infrastructure improvements on the operational effectiveness of Fort Lewis?

The infrastructure improvements funded by this $20.7 million contract are expected to have a positive impact on the operational effectiveness of Fort Lewis. Enhanced facilities can lead to improved living and working conditions for service members, which can boost morale and retention. Modernized infrastructure can also support the deployment of new technologies and equipment, ensuring the base remains capable of fulfilling its mission requirements. Furthermore, reliable and efficient infrastructure is critical for the day-to-day operations of a military installation, from training exercises to logistical support. The specific nature of the 'BCT Complex Increments 3 & 4' suggests upgrades directly supporting Brigade Combat Teams, a core fighting unit.

What historical spending patterns exist for infrastructure projects at Fort Lewis or similar Army installations?

Historical spending patterns for infrastructure projects at Fort Lewis and similar Army installations reveal a consistent need for facility upgrades and modernization. The Department of the Army annually allocates significant funds towards maintaining and improving its vast real estate portfolio. Spending often fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, new equipment deployments, and aging infrastructure needing replacement. Projects can range from minor repairs to major construction efforts like barracks, training facilities, and support buildings. Analyzing past contract awards for similar construction types and values at Fort Lewis would provide context for the $20.7 million award, highlighting trends in project scope, contractor selection, and cost escalation over time.

What are the implications of the firm-fixed-price contract type for project management and cost control?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally advantageous for the government in construction projects as it places the primary responsibility for cost control on the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor agrees to perform a specified scope of work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their resources efficiently and complete the project within the agreed-upon budget. For project management, the government's role focuses on ensuring the contractor adheres to the contract's technical specifications, quality standards, and delivery schedule. While the price is fixed, effective oversight is still crucial to ensure the contractor delivers the required quality and avoids scope creep that could lead to disputes or claims.

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: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W912DW09R0026

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Afognak Native Corp (UEI: 052089695)

Address: 3909 ARCTIC BLVD, STE 400, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,778,325

Exercised Options: $20,778,325

Current Obligation: $20,778,325

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DW10D1002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline