Air Force contract for commercial building construction awarded to Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. for over $16.5 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,502,131 ($16.5M)

Contractor: Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-08-16

End Date: 2013-01-24

Contract Duration: 892 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 30

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.5 million to LAKESHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for work described as: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN Key points: 1. The contract value of over $16.5 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract appear robust, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. The duration of the contract (892 days) indicates a substantial project scope. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type generally offers cost certainty for the government. 5. The award was made under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, implying a broad initial search. 6. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable construction projects. The total award amount of over $16.5 million for commercial and institutional building construction is substantial. However, without knowing the scope, location, and specific deliverables, it's difficult to assess if this represents excellent value for money. The firm fixed-price nature provides budget predictability, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the delivered construction.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This suggests that while the competition was broad, there might have been initial considerations or exclusions before the final open competition phase. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation generally implies a competitive process aimed at soliciting offers from all responsible sources.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with initial exclusions, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive bids and thus potentially lower prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force, which will receive improved or new commercial and institutional building facilities. The services delivered involve the construction of commercial and institutional buildings, likely supporting Air Force operations and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to the Air Force installation where the construction takes place. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on project scope and deliverables makes it hard to fully assess value for money.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation to understand its impact on competition.
No information provided on small business subcontracting, which could be a missed opportunity for small business engagement.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The contractor, Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc., has experience in this domain.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as offices, schools, hospitals, and government facilities. The market size for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure and build new facilities to support government operations. This specific contract likely contributes to the Air Force's facility management and modernization efforts.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false). There is no information regarding subcontracting plans or performance. This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a large business, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program/project managers within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed project oversight and inspector general jurisdiction would depend on the specific nature and potential issues arising during the construction phase.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
Architectural and Engineering Services
General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Buildings Fund

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if contractor faces unforeseen issues.
Risk of quality compromise if contractor seeks to maximize profit on fixed-price contract.
Scope creep management is critical due to long project duration.
Dependence on contractor's financial stability and performance history.
Potential for disputes arising from site conditions or change orders.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.5 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 $16.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-08-16. End: 2013-01-24.

What is the track record of Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in construction?

Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily within the construction domain. Analyzing their past performance, including on-time delivery, adherence to budget, and quality of work on previous Air Force or other Department of Defense projects, would provide crucial insights into their reliability and capability. A review of contract close-out data and any reported disputes or performance issues would further inform an assessment of their track record. Without specific historical data points beyond this award, it's presumed they met the qualifications for this significant contract.

How does the $16.5 million award compare to typical construction contracts for similar Air Force facilities?

The $16.5 million award is a substantial sum, indicative of a significant construction project. To benchmark its value, one would need to compare it against the average cost of similar commercial and institutional building projects undertaken by the Air Force or other federal agencies. Factors such as project scope (e.g., square footage, complexity of systems), location (which affects labor and material costs), and the specific type of facility (e.g., administrative building, hangar, training facility) are critical for a meaningful comparison. A higher or lower value relative to benchmarks could signal either exceptional value or potential overpricing/underbidding.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price construction contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks with a firm fixed-price contract of this magnitude revolve around potential cost overruns for the contractor, which could lead to quality compromises or contractor default if not managed effectively. For the government, the risk lies in the contractor potentially cutting corners on materials or labor to maintain profitability, impacting the long-term durability and functionality of the facility. Scope creep, if not rigorously managed through change orders, can also become a risk. Furthermore, unforeseen site conditions or delays beyond the contractor's control can lead to disputes and claims, impacting the project timeline and potentially the final cost if not handled contractually.

How effective is 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' in ensuring competitive pricing for construction projects?

The effectiveness of 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' in ensuring competitive pricing is nuanced. 'Full and open' competition is generally the most effective method for achieving competitive pricing as it solicits offers from the widest possible pool of responsible contractors. The 'after exclusion of sources' qualifier suggests that certain potential bidders may have been excluded prior to the open solicitation. If these exclusions were based on legitimate pre-qualification criteria or specific technical requirements, the remaining competition could still be robust. However, if the exclusions were arbitrary or overly restrictive, it could limit the number of bidders and potentially reduce competitive pressure, leading to less favorable pricing for the government.

What are the historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Air Force?

Historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Air Force typically show significant annual investments, driven by the need to maintain and modernize a vast global infrastructure. Spending fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, base realignments, new technology integration, and aging facility replacement needs. Analyzing past five to ten years of spending data would reveal trends, identify peak spending periods, and highlight the average contract values for similar projects. This context helps in evaluating whether the $16.5 million award is in line with historical norms or represents an outlier.

What are the implications of the 892-day duration for project management and oversight?

A contract duration of 892 days (approximately 2.5 years) for a construction project of this scale necessitates robust, long-term project management and oversight. This extended timeline increases the potential for encountering unforeseen challenges, such as changes in material costs, labor availability, environmental regulations, or even shifts in the government's operational requirements. Effective oversight will require consistent monitoring of progress against milestones, diligent management of the change order process, proactive risk identification and mitigation, and strong communication channels between the government representatives and the contractor. The extended duration also means sustained resource allocation for government oversight personnel.

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: 30

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7310 WOODWARD AVENUE, FIFT, DETROIT, MI, 48202

Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,502,131

Exercised Options: $16,502,131

Current Obligation: $16,502,131

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $3,803,975

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA890306D8505

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline