DoD's $22.17M Clinic Modernization Contract Awarded to StructSure Projects Inc. for USAF Academy

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,173,210 ($22.2M)

Contractor: Structsure Projects Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-29

End Date: 2010-02-20

Contract Duration: 875 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FY07 CLINIC MODERNIZATION, USAF ACADEMY

Place of Performance

Location: USAF ACADEMY, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80840

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.2 million to STRUCTSURE PROJECTS INC for work described as: FY07 CLINIC MODERNIZATION, USAF ACADEMY Key points: 1. The contract value of $22.17 million for clinic modernization appears substantial, warranting a review of its cost-effectiveness against similar projects. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract's pricing and contractor selection should reflect competitive market dynamics. 3. The duration of 875 days suggests a complex project, and potential risks related to schedule and performance should be monitored. 4. This project falls within the broader context of healthcare infrastructure development for military installations. 5. The contract's positioning within the construction sector, specifically for institutional buildings, is noted. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates a focus on larger contracting entities for this specific project.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $22.17 million for clinic modernization at the USAF Academy requires benchmarking against similar construction projects for healthcare facilities. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for square footage or specific modernization tasks, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some risk to the contractor, which can be a positive indicator if the price was competitive. Further analysis would involve comparing the per-square-foot cost or cost per specialized medical room to similar government or private sector projects.

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 offers. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, but the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process are not detailed here. A low number of bidders in a full and open competition could potentially limit price discovery and may warrant further investigation into market conditions or barriers to entry.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging efficiency. The fact that this was competed openly suggests that the government sought the best value through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are military personnel and their families stationed at the USAF Academy, who will receive modernized clinic facilities. The services delivered include the construction and modernization of healthcare facilities, improving the quality and capacity of medical care. The geographic impact is localized to the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado. The project likely involved a workforce of construction professionals, tradespeople, and project managers, contributing to employment in the sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract did not adequately account for all project complexities.
Risk of schedule delays impacting the availability of modernized medical facilities for service members.
Quality control issues during construction could lead to long-term maintenance problems.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing structure.
Fixed-price contract type transfers some performance risk to the contractor.
The contractor, StructSure Projects Inc., has experience in construction projects, which may indicate a capacity to deliver.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The market for healthcare construction, particularly for government facilities, is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade medical infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar medical facility construction or renovation projects undertaken by the government or in the private sector. The size of this contract suggests it is a significant project within its specific niche.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the scope and requirements of the clinic modernization project were likely beyond the typical capacity or specialization of small businesses, or that the competition strategy favored larger firms. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but in the absence of a small business set-aside, the prime contractor may have discretion in awarding subcontracts, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses unless specifically incentivized or required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant agency (Department of the Army, under the Department of Defense). Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance with contract terms would be key oversight functions. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Healthcare Infrastructure Modernization
Department of Defense Facilities Management
USAF Medical Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation if scope changes significantly.
Risk of delays impacting operational readiness.
Quality of construction may require rigorous oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.2 million to STRUCTSURE PROJECTS INC. FY07 CLINIC MODERNIZATION, USAF ACADEMY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STRUCTSURE PROJECTS 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 $22.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-29. End: 2010-02-20.

What is the track record of StructSure Projects Inc. on similar government contracts, particularly in healthcare facility construction?

StructSure Projects Inc. has a history of performing construction contracts for various government agencies. While specific details on their healthcare facility construction track record for the DoD are not provided in this data snippet, their involvement in a $22.17 million clinic modernization project suggests they possess the necessary experience and capacity. A deeper dive into their past performance evaluations, contract completion history, and any reported issues on similar projects would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment. Reviewing their portfolio of completed projects, especially those involving medical facilities or complex institutional buildings, would offer further insight into their capabilities and reliability as a contractor for the USAF Academy.

How does the awarded amount of $22.17 million compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar clinic modernization projects?

Benchmarking the $22.17 million award against similar clinic modernization projects is essential for assessing value for money. Without specific details on the scope of work (e.g., square footage, types of medical services modernized, complexity of renovations), direct comparison is challenging. However, industry data for healthcare construction can provide a range. For instance, costs per square foot for medical facility construction can vary widely, from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand, depending on specialization. If this contract covers a significant facility or extensive upgrades, the price might be reasonable. Conversely, if it represents a smaller scope, it could indicate overpricing. Further analysis would require detailed project specifications and comparison with publicly available cost data for comparable DoD or civilian healthcare construction projects.

What were the primary risk indicators identified during the procurement process for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not explicitly detail the risk indicators identified during the procurement process. However, common risks in large construction projects include potential schedule delays, cost overruns (even in fixed-price contracts due to unforeseen conditions), quality control issues, and contractor performance problems. Given the 875-day duration, schedule adherence is a key risk. The fixed-price contract type inherently shifts some financial risk to the contractor. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust contract clauses, performance bonds, detailed project management plans, regular site inspections, and clear communication channels between the government and the contractor. The number of bidders (two) might also suggest potential market risks or barriers to entry that could impact competition and pricing.

What is the expected impact of this clinic modernization on the delivery of healthcare services to USAF Academy personnel?

The modernization of the clinic is expected to significantly enhance the delivery of healthcare services to USAF Academy personnel. Upgraded facilities typically lead to improved patient comfort, better workflow for medical staff, and the potential integration of new medical technologies or expanded service offerings. This can result in more efficient diagnoses, treatment, and overall patient care. Modernized clinics are often designed to meet current healthcare standards and regulations, ensuring a higher quality of medical services. For personnel, this means access to more up-to-date and potentially more comprehensive medical support, contributing to readiness and well-being.

How has historical spending on clinic modernization or similar construction projects at military installations trended over the past decade?

Historical spending on clinic modernization and similar construction projects at military installations has generally been substantial, driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure and adapt to evolving healthcare needs and technologies. While specific figures for USAF Academy clinic modernization are not provided, the Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funds towards military construction (MILCON) and facility upgrades across all branches. Trends often reflect shifts in military priorities, technological advancements in healthcare, and budget allocations. Factors like the number of personnel served, the scope of services offered, and the age of existing facilities influence spending levels. Analyzing broader DoD healthcare infrastructure spending patterns would reveal trends in investment, project types, and average contract values over time.

Were there any specific performance concerns or successes noted in previous contracts awarded to StructSure Projects Inc. by the DoD or other federal agencies?

The provided data does not contain specific performance concerns or successes for StructSure Projects Inc. on previous contracts. To assess their track record, one would need to consult performance evaluation reports (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) or other contract databases that track contractor performance history. Such reports typically detail on-time delivery, quality of work, cost control, and overall customer satisfaction. Without access to this information, it's difficult to definitively gauge their past performance, although their selection for this significant project suggests they met the government's criteria at the time of award.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9126G04R0002

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 8041 WEST 47TH STREET, SUI, OVERLAND PARK, KS, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,263,626

Exercised Options: $22,263,626

Current Obligation: $22,173,210

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9126G04D0011

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline