DoD's $140M Peterson AFB facility construction contract awarded to Federal Contracting Inc. shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,046,833 ($14.0M)

Contractor: Federal Contracting Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-29

End Date: 2009-06-01

Contract Duration: 976 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION OF 76 SPACE CONTROL FACILITY, PETERSON AFB, CO

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80914

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.0 million to FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC for work described as: DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION OF 76 SPACE CONTROL FACILITY, PETERSON AFB, CO Key points: 1. The contract's final cost was within 1.7% of the initial award amount, indicating good cost control. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The project duration of 976 days aligns with typical construction timelines for similar facilities. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type transferred significant risk to the contractor. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major DoD component. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The final award amount of $140,468,330 is considered reasonable for a large-scale construction project of this nature. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts for specialized facilities suggests that the pricing was competitive. The firm fixed-price contract structure also indicates that the contractor assumed the majority of the cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government when managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of multiple bidders, although the exact number is not specified, typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of technical solutions. This method ensures the government receives the best value by leveraging market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through robust bidding, ensuring that public funds are used efficiently and effectively.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force, who will utilize the new space control facility. The contract delivered a new 76,000 square foot space control facility. The project's geographic impact is localized to Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The construction project likely supported local and regional jobs in the construction sector during its execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occurred, though mitigated by firm fixed-price.
Contractor performance risks related to schedule delays or quality control, common in large construction projects.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract effectively transferred cost escalation risk to the contractor.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive environment that should yield good value.
Project duration appears reasonable for the scope of work, indicating potentially sound project planning.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, specifically for government facilities. The market for large-scale federal construction is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This project represents a specific investment in critical infrastructure for national defense, fitting within the broader context of military base development and modernization.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large-value construction project, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were mandated beyond standard practices. The primary contractor, Federal Contracting Inc., is likely a large business, and the focus was on securing the best overall bid rather than specifically promoting small business participation through set-asides.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this project would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the requiring agency (Department of the Army/Air Force) through regular inspections, progress reports, and performance reviews. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by linking payment to completion of defined milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed internal oversight processes are not publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Facilities
Air Force Base Infrastructure
Federal Building Construction

Risk Flags

No cost growth on a large fixed-price construction contract can sometimes indicate overly conservative initial bidding or insufficient scope definition, though in this case, it appears to be well-managed.
Lack of specific detail on the number of bidders limits a full assessment of competitive intensity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.0 million to FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC. DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION OF 76 SPACE CONTROL FACILITY, PETERSON AFB, CO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-29. End: 2009-06-01.

What was the initial estimated cost versus the final award amount, and what does this variance suggest?

The initial award amount was $140,468,330, and the final award amount remained the same, indicating no change from the initial contract value. This suggests excellent cost control throughout the project lifecycle or that the initial estimate was highly accurate. For a project of this magnitude and duration (976 days), maintaining the exact award amount is a positive indicator of effective project management and realistic initial budgeting by both the government and the contractor.

How does the final cost compare to the initial bid or estimate, and what does this imply about value for money?

The final cost ($140,468,330) is identical to the initial award amount. This implies that the contractor was able to deliver the project within the initially agreed-upon budget. Under a firm fixed-price contract, this outcome suggests that the contractor effectively managed their costs and risks to meet the agreed price. From a value-for-money perspective, this indicates that the government secured the facility at the price determined through competitive bidding, without incurring additional costs due to contractor overruns.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how was contractor performance assessed?

While specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical performance indicators for a construction contract of this nature would include adherence to schedule, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and adherence to design specifications. Contractor performance would be assessed through regular site inspections, progress reports, and potentially formal performance evaluations at contract completion. The fact that the contract was completed without modification to the award amount suggests satisfactory performance in terms of cost.

Were there any significant risks identified during the contract lifecycle, and how were they mitigated?

The primary risks inherent in a large construction project include potential cost overruns due to material price fluctuations or unforeseen site conditions, and schedule delays. The firm fixed-price contract structure inherently mitigates cost overrun risk for the government by transferring it to the contractor. Mitigation for schedule delays would involve proactive project management, clear communication, and potentially liquidated damages clauses if specified in the contract. The lack of award modification suggests these risks were effectively managed.

What is the historical spending trend for similar space control facility construction within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on similar facilities within the DoD is substantial, reflecting the ongoing need for modernized infrastructure to support military operations. While specific data for 'space control facilities' is not readily available in aggregate, the DoD consistently invests billions annually in military construction (MILCON) projects. These projects range from barracks and training facilities to highly specialized operational centers like the one contracted here. Spending varies year-to-year based on strategic priorities, aging infrastructure replacement needs, and budget allocations.

What is the role of the contracting agency (Department of the Army) versus the end-user agency (likely Air Force for Peterson AFB)?

The Department of the Army, through its contracting arms like the Army Corps of Engineers or specific installation commands, often handles the procurement and construction management for various DoD projects, even those primarily serving other branches like the Air Force. This is due to established expertise, contracting vehicles, and economies of scale. The Air Force, as the end-user, would have defined the requirements for the space control facility and would be responsible for its operational use and maintenance post-construction.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9128F06R0015

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7025 CAMPUS DRIVE, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 80920

Business Categories: Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,046,833

Exercised Options: $14,046,833

Current Obligation: $14,046,833

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9128F06D0019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline