DoD's $13.4M Construction Contract Awarded to Valiant Government Services LLC for Work in North Carolina

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,377,889 ($13.4M)

Contractor: Valiant Government Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-23

End Date: 2012-02-20

Contract Duration: 1,245 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: WORK PLAN - FIRM FIXED PRICE

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28307

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.4 million to VALIANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC for work described as: WORK PLAN - FIRM FIXED PRICE Key points: 1. Contract awarded under firm-fixed-price terms, indicating a defined scope and cost. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. The contract duration of 1245 days (over 3 years) points to a substantial project. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, aligning with defense infrastructure needs. 5. The North Carolina location suggests a focus on regional military base improvements. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially limiting direct opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government. However, without specific performance metrics or a comparison to similar construction projects in the region, assessing the overall value for money is challenging. The raw dollar amount of $13.4 million for commercial and institutional building construction is significant, but its efficiency depends heavily on the scope and quality of the work delivered over its multi-year duration. Benchmarking against industry standards for similar construction projects would be necessary for a more definitive value assessment.

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. This suggests a robust bidding environment, which typically fosters price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing. The presence of 3 bidders, as indicated, provides a moderate level of competition. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally suggest that the market was sufficiently engaged.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by encouraging contractors to offer their best prices. Full and open competition minimizes the risk of overpayment due to a lack of market engagement.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families stationed in North Carolina are likely beneficiaries through improved facilities. The contract supports the construction and maintenance of essential institutional buildings for the Department of Defense. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, potentially boosting the local economy through construction jobs and related services. The project implies a demand for skilled labor in the construction trades within the specified region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the quality and efficiency of the construction work.
The absence of small business subcontracting goals may limit opportunities for smaller firms to participate in this large contract.
Without a clear per-unit cost benchmark, it's hard to definitively state if the $13.4M represents optimal value.
The contract's duration could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively, despite the fixed-price nature.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a fair and potentially cost-effective procurement process.
The contract addresses a clear need for infrastructure development within the Department of Defense.
Awarded to a single contractor, potentially streamlining project management and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, frequently awarding contracts for base infrastructure, housing, and operational facilities. Spending in this sector is often driven by modernization efforts, new construction, and maintenance requirements for government assets. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar military construction projects across different geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of small business subcontracting requirements. This means that opportunities for small businesses to directly bid on this substantial $13.4 million contract were limited. While the prime contractor, Valiant Government Services LLC, may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses, the absence of a formal set-aside or subcontracting plan means this is not guaranteed. This could limit the direct economic impact on the small business construction ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is subject to standard Department of Defense oversight mechanisms for construction projects, including contract administration and quality assurance. As a firm-fixed-price contract, the primary accountability measure is the successful completion of the defined scope of work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed.
Risk of underperformance or delays impacting project timeline.
Limited visibility into specific performance metrics.
No explicit small business subcontracting requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.4 million to VALIANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC. WORK PLAN - FIRM FIXED PRICE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VALIANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-23. End: 2012-02-20.

What is Valiant Government Services LLC's track record with similar Department of Defense construction contracts?

Valiant Government Services LLC has a history of performing various services for the federal government, including construction-related activities. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts, particularly those awarded by the Department of the Army or other DoD components, would provide insight into their ability to manage large-scale projects, adhere to schedules, and maintain quality standards. A review of past performance evaluations and any contract disputes or terminations would be crucial. Without specific data on their prior DoD construction awards, it's difficult to definitively assess their suitability beyond the fact they were selected in a competitive process for this particular contract.

How does the $13.4 million cost compare to similar institutional building construction projects in North Carolina?

Benchmarking the $13.4 million cost against similar institutional building construction projects in North Carolina requires access to detailed cost data for comparable projects, including size, scope, materials, and complexity. Publicly available data often lacks this granularity. However, general industry cost indices for commercial and institutional construction in the Southeastern United States can provide a rough comparison. Factors such as prevailing wages, local material costs, and specific site conditions in North Carolina would influence the final price. A detailed cost-per-square-foot analysis, if the building size is known, would be the most effective way to compare this contract's value against market rates.

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

The primary risks for the government in a firm-fixed-price contract, even with competition, include potential for contractor underperformance, scope creep if not managed tightly, and unforeseen site conditions that could lead to change orders, although the fixed price aims to mitigate this. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating costs, encountering unexpected construction challenges, or facing delays that impact profitability. Given the 1245-day duration, risks related to material price fluctuations (if not contractually addressed), labor availability, and adherence to evolving building codes or environmental regulations are also present. Effective project management and oversight are critical to mitigating these risks for both parties.

How effective is 'full and open competition' in ensuring competitive pricing for large DoD construction contracts?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring competitive pricing for large DoD construction contracts. It maximizes the pool of potential bidders, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving multiple competitive offers. This process allows the market to dictate pricing based on supply and demand, contractor capabilities, and risk assessment. While it doesn't guarantee the lowest possible price in all circumstances (e.g., highly specialized work or limited contractor availability), it significantly reduces the risk of non-competitive pricing and promotes price discovery. The presence of 3 bidders in this case suggests a reasonable level of market engagement.

What is the historical spending pattern for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army?

The Department of the Army consistently allocates significant funds towards commercial and institutional building construction as part of its infrastructure maintenance, modernization, and expansion efforts. Historical spending patterns reveal a substantial and ongoing investment in facilities across numerous bases and installations nationwide. This spending is often influenced by factors such as military readiness requirements, troop levels, new technology integration, and aging infrastructure needing replacement. Analyzing historical data would show cyclical trends related to major defense budgets, specific military construction initiatives (like MILCON programs), and geographic priorities. The $13.4 million award represents a single data point within this larger, consistent spending category.

Are there specific performance metrics or KPIs tied to this $13.4M contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tied to this $13.4 million contract. In firm-fixed-price contracts, performance is typically measured against the defined scope of work, schedule adherence, and quality standards outlined in the contract specifications. Specific KPIs might include milestones for design completion, construction phases, safety compliance rates, and final project acceptance. Without access to the full contract details, it's impossible to list the exact KPIs. However, the Department of Defense generally employs rigorous quality assurance and oversight processes to ensure contract performance.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Global Innovation Partners LLC (UEI: 104168518)

Address: 3999 FT CAMPBELL BLVD, HOPKINSVILLE, KY, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,518,966

Exercised Options: $13,377,889

Current Obligation: $13,377,889

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DACA8703D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline