DoD's $80.7M contract for Alaska construction services awarded to Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $80,678,055 ($80.7M)
Contractor: Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-04-23
End Date: 2012-07-01
Contract Duration: 1,165 days
Daily Burn Rate: $69.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN
Place of Performance
Location: EIELSON AFB, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR County, ALASKA, 99702
State: Alaska Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $80.7 million to LAKESHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for work described as: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN Key points: 1. Contract value of $80.7M for construction services in Alaska. 2. Awarded by the Department of the Air Force, indicating a focus on military infrastructure. 3. The contract duration of 1165 days suggests a significant, multi-year project. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 5. The procurement method indicates a competitive process, though with specific exclusions. 6. The project is located in Alaska, suggesting potential logistical and environmental considerations.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $80.7 million for commercial and institutional building construction in Alaska appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar projects requires detailed cost breakdowns and scope comparisons, which are not fully available. However, given the fixed-price nature, the government's risk is somewhat mitigated if the scope was well-defined. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparisons to market rates for similar construction projects in remote or challenging environments like Alaska, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while a competitive process was intended, certain sources were excluded. This suggests that the initial solicitation may have been broad, but specific criteria or circumstances led to the exclusion of some potential bidders. With only 2 bids received, the level of competition was limited, which could potentially impact price discovery and may not have resulted in the most competitive pricing achievable under a truly open and unrestricted competition.
Taxpayer Impact: A limited competition with only two bidders means taxpayers may not have benefited from the full range of competitive pricing that a broader field of bidders could have offered. This could translate to a higher overall cost for the services rendered.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force and its personnel stationed in Alaska, who will receive improved or new facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing infrastructure critical for military operations and support. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, potentially involving construction in remote or environmentally sensitive areas. Workforce implications may include the creation of construction jobs in Alaska, both directly and indirectly through subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition (2 bidders) may have reduced price pressure.
- Exclusion of sources in the competition process warrants further investigation into the justification.
- Fixed-price contracts can lead to cost overruns if scope is not precisely managed, especially in complex construction projects.
- Construction in Alaska presents unique logistical and environmental challenges that can increase costs and risks.
Positive Signals
- Fixed-price contract type helps to cap government liability for cost overruns.
- Award to a single contractor streamlines project management and accountability.
- The contract duration suggests a commitment to completing a significant infrastructure project.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. The Department of Defense is a significant consumer of construction services, particularly for maintaining and upgrading its vast network of bases and facilities worldwide. Spending in this sector is influenced by infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and geopolitical requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction contracts awarded by federal agencies, especially those for military installations in challenging climates.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc., may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract, contributing to the broader small business ecosystem. The absence of a set-aside means the primary competition was open to all eligible large businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected or reported.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
- Federal Buildings and Facilities Construction
- Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Risk Flags
- Limited competition may have led to suboptimal pricing.
- Potential for cost increases due to Alaska's challenging construction environment.
- Exclusion of sources requires scrutiny to ensure fairness and full competition.
- Fixed-price contracts can be risky if scope definition is inadequate.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-air-force, construction, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, alaska, large-contract, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $80.7 million to LAKESHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.. MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LAKESHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $80.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-04-23. End: 2012-07-01.
What specific types of commercial and institutional buildings were constructed or improved under this contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact types of buildings constructed or improved. However, given the awarding agency is the Department of the Air Force and the location is Alaska, it is highly probable that the construction involved facilities critical to military operations. This could include barracks, hangars, administrative buildings, training facilities, or support infrastructure. A detailed review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) would be necessary to ascertain the precise nature of the construction activities undertaken.
How does the per-square-foot cost of this construction compare to similar projects in Alaska or other Arctic regions?
The provided data does not include square footage or detailed cost breakdowns, making a direct per-square-foot cost comparison impossible. Construction in Alaska is notoriously expensive due to logistical challenges, harsh climate, limited infrastructure, and specialized labor requirements. Therefore, any comparison would need to account for these significant regional cost drivers. Without specific project details and cost data, benchmarking against similar projects in Alaska or other Arctic regions would require access to more granular information than is available in the summary data.
What were the primary reasons for excluding certain sources in the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' process?
The data indicates the procurement method was 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' suggesting that while the initial solicitation was broad, specific criteria or circumstances led to the exclusion of certain potential bidders. Common reasons for such exclusions can include specific technical capabilities, past performance requirements, security clearances, or geographic limitations that only a subset of contractors could meet. Without further documentation, such as a Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) or detailed solicitation documents, the precise reasons for exclusion remain unknown but are typically tied to ensuring the best value or capability for a specific government need.
What is the track record of Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. with Department of Defense contracts, particularly in Alaska?
Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. has a history of receiving contracts from the Department of Defense. The provided data shows this specific $80.7 million contract awarded in 2009. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine their complete contract history with the DoD, including performance reviews, any past disputes or contract terminations, and their experience with similar large-scale construction projects in challenging environments like Alaska. A deeper dive into contract databases would reveal the extent and nature of their prior work for the DoD.
How did the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost, if available?
The provided data indicates a 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type. This means the price was set at the time of award and is generally not subject to change unless the scope of work is formally modified through contract change orders. The data does not provide information on the initial estimated cost or how the final awarded price compares to it. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the government's liability was capped at the awarded amount, assuming no scope changes occurred.
What are the potential risks associated with performing large-scale construction in Alaska, and how were they mitigated?
Performing large-scale construction in Alaska presents significant risks, including extreme weather conditions impacting schedules and worker safety, logistical complexities in transporting materials and equipment to remote sites, permafrost challenges affecting foundation stability, and potentially higher labor costs. Mitigation strategies typically involve detailed site investigations, robust project planning accounting for seasonal limitations, specialized construction techniques, strong supply chain management, and comprehensive safety protocols. The contract's fixed-price nature implies that the contractor assumed much of this risk, but the government would still be concerned with project completion and quality.
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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7310 WOODWARD AVENUE, FIFT, DETROIT, MI, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $80,678,055
Exercised Options: $80,678,055
Current Obligation: $80,678,055
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA890306D8505
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-04-23
Current End Date: 2012-07-01
Potential End Date: 2012-07-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-09-23
More Contracts from Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc.
- Construct 3 Airfield Projects — $190.2M (Department of Defense)
- Demolish 104 Military Family Housing (MFH) Units, Construct 90 NEW MFH Units and Renovate 99 MFH Units Eielson, AFB, — $96.2M (Department of Defense)
- ADU Phase II Afghanistan — $70.0M (Department of Defense)
- Migrated Data Value Unknown — $59.2M (Department of Defense)
- TAS::57 3404::TAS Recoveryproject#::ftqwo94001::rp# Replace Military Family Housing Units AT Eielson AFB, AK — $51.7M (Department of Defense)
View all Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. federal contracts →
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)