DoD's $22.6M construction contract awarded to Caddell Construction for a Kentucky facility

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,618,649 ($22.6M)

Contractor: Caddell Construction CO. (DE), LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-03

End Date: 2012-01-05

Contract Duration: 854 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

Place of Performance

Location: FORT CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN County, KENTUCKY, 42223

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.6 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO. (DE), LLC for work described as: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in defense infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and manage financial risk. 4. Contract duration of 854 days indicates a substantial construction project. 5. Geographic focus on Kentucky highlights regional economic impact. 6. The project falls under commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $22.6 million for a commercial building construction project appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to establish cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for financial management.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bids suggests a competitive environment, which typically leads to better pricing and value for the government. This level of competition is ideal for ensuring market-based pricing and avoiding potential cost overruns.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages efficiency from contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, which gains a new or improved facility. The project delivers essential building construction services. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kentucky, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the project's vicinity.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Delays in construction schedule could impact facility readiness and increase overall project cost.
Quality control issues could lead to long-term maintenance problems and increased lifecycle costs.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Contractor has experience in large-scale construction projects.
Project duration is clearly defined, allowing for structured planning and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense being major clients. Competition within this sector is typically robust, especially for large-scale projects awarded through full and open competition. Benchmarking against similar DoD construction projects would reveal if this contract's value is aligned with market rates for similar scope and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best offer from the pool of all eligible bidders, regardless of size. The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses would likely be through direct subcontracting by the prime contractor, Caddell Construction.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver the project within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Defense Facilities
Government Building Projects
Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting project completion.
Quality control concerns impacting long-term facility performance.
Contractor performance variability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.6 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO. (DE), LLC. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO. (DE), LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-03. End: 2012-01-05.

What is Caddell Construction Co.'s track record with the Department of Defense and similar federal construction projects?

Caddell Construction Co. (DE), LLC has a significant history of performing construction services for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Their portfolio often includes large-scale, complex projects such as barracks, training facilities, and administrative buildings. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts, particularly those awarded under full and open competition, would provide insight into their ability to manage costs, adhere to schedules, and meet quality standards. Reviewing past performance evaluations and any documented disputes or claims can further illuminate their reliability as a federal contractor. Their extensive experience suggests a strong understanding of government contracting requirements and construction best practices.

How does the $22.6 million contract value compare to similar building construction projects awarded by the Defense Commissary Agency or other DoD entities?

To assess the value for money, the $22.6 million contract award needs to be benchmarked against comparable projects. This involves comparing the contract's scope, size (square footage), complexity, and duration against other building construction contracts awarded by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) or similar Department of Defense entities over the past several years. Factors such as geographic location, specific construction type (e.g., new build vs. renovation), and prevailing market conditions at the time of award are crucial for a fair comparison. If this contract's cost per square foot or overall value significantly deviates from similar projects, it could indicate either exceptional value or potential overpricing, warranting further investigation into the specific project requirements and market dynamics.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk in a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is the potential for the contractor to incur losses if costs exceed the agreed-upon price, which can incentivize cost-cutting that may impact quality or schedule. Conversely, the government bears the risk of paying a premium if the contractor's initial price is too high. For this $22.6 million contract, risks include unforeseen site conditions, material price escalations (though often mitigated by contract clauses or market stability), labor shortages, and design issues. Mitigation strategies typically involve thorough pre-award site investigations, robust contract language addressing unforeseen conditions, clear performance specifications, and active government oversight throughout the construction lifecycle to ensure compliance with quality and schedule requirements.

What is the expected effectiveness and impact of the facility being constructed under this contract?

The effectiveness and impact of the facility depend entirely on its intended purpose, which is not detailed in the provided data. Assuming it's a critical infrastructure project for the Department of Defense, its effectiveness would be measured by its contribution to mission readiness, operational capacity, or support services. For example, a new training facility would enhance troop preparedness, while an upgraded logistical hub would improve supply chain efficiency. The impact would be felt through improved operational capabilities for the DoD, potential economic benefits for the local Kentucky community through job creation and spending, and the long-term utility of a modern, functional facility. A thorough assessment would require understanding the specific function and performance metrics associated with the new or renovated building.

How has federal spending on building construction, particularly within the Department of Defense, trended in recent years, and where does this contract fit?

Federal spending on building construction, especially within the Department of Defense, has historically been substantial, driven by the need to maintain and modernize military infrastructure globally. Recent trends may show fluctuations based on defense budgets, geopolitical priorities, and infrastructure investment initiatives. This $22.6 million contract represents a specific instance of that broader spending pattern. To understand its context, one would analyze historical spending data for similar construction projects by the DoD, looking at average contract values, project types, and agency priorities. This contract fits within the DoD's ongoing efforts to ensure its facilities are adequate for current and future operational needs, potentially reflecting a specific investment in the Kentucky region or a particular type of facility upgrade.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Caddell Construction CO., Inc. (UEI: 102087285)

Address: 2700 LAGOON PARK DR, MONTGOMERY, AL, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,618,649

Exercised Options: $22,618,649

Current Obligation: $22,618,649

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA300207D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline