Forest Service awards $111K contract to JMG Ventures for critical spring box replacement to prevent infiltration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $111,000 ($111.0K)

Contractor: JMG Ventures, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2025-11-25

End Date: 2026-10-10

Contract Duration: 319 days

Daily Burn Rate: $348/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE EXISTING SPRING BOX AT DOUBLE SPRINGS. THE SPRING BOX IS OLD, AND INFILTRATION IS OCCURRING. ADEQ IS REQUIRING THE SPRING BOX BE REPLACED OR UPGRADED TO PREVENT INFILTRATION.

Place of Performance

Location: FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO County, ARIZONA, 86002

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $111,000 to JMG VENTURES, LLC for work described as: DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE EXISTING SPRING BOX AT DOUBLE SPRINGS. THE SPRING BOX IS OLD, AND INFILTRATION IS OCCURRING. ADEQ IS REQUIRING THE SPRING BOX BE REPLACED OR UPGRADED TO PREVENT INFILTRATION. Key points: 1. Contract addresses ADEQ-mandated upgrades to prevent water infiltration. 2. JMG Ventures, LLC secured the award through full and open competition. 3. The project involves replacing an aging spring box, a key infrastructure component. 4. Fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government. 5. The award is a purchase order, indicating a relatively straightforward procurement. 6. Project duration is approximately 10 months, aligning with infrastructure timelines.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $111,000 for replacing a spring box appears reasonable, especially considering it addresses a regulatory requirement from ADEQ. Without specific details on the scope of work or comparable project costs, it's difficult to provide a precise benchmark. However, the fixed-price nature of the award suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the costs involved. The number of bids received (6) also indicates a competitive environment that likely contributed to a fair price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that the solicitation was broadly advertised, but specific sources were excluded for reasons not detailed here. Six bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of competition for this infrastructure project. The presence of multiple bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely resulted in a more cost-effective solution for the necessary infrastructure upgrade.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the users of the water source, ensuring a more reliable and protected supply. The service delivered is the replacement of critical water infrastructure, enhancing water quality and system integrity. The project's geographic impact is localized to the Double Springs area in Arizona. This contract supports the local construction and maintenance workforce involved in infrastructure projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if unforeseen issues arise during demolition and replacement of the aging spring box.
Dependence on JMG Ventures, LLC's ability to meet the project timeline and quality standards.

Positive Signals

Addresses a clear regulatory requirement from ADEQ, mitigating compliance risks.
Fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
Competitive award process suggests a fair market price was achieved.
Project duration is well-defined, allowing for focused execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction and infrastructure sector, specifically related to water resource management and concrete product manufacturing (NAICS 327390). The market for such services involves specialized contractors capable of performing civil works and infrastructure upgrades. The Forest Service, like other federal agencies, frequently procures services for maintaining and improving its vast network of facilities and natural resource management infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract was set aside for small businesses, nor does it detail subcontracting plans. However, with six bidders participating in a full and open competition, it suggests that both small and large businesses had the opportunity to bid. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation or subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is a purchase order, which typically has defined oversight procedures within the issuing agency. The Forest Service, as part of the Department of Agriculture, is subject to internal oversight mechanisms and potentially audits by the Office of the Inspector General. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, where award details are recorded.

Related Government Programs

Water Infrastructure Improvement Projects
Natural Resource Management Facilities
Environmental Compliance Contracts
Public Lands Maintenance

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting cost and schedule.
Reliance on contractor's expertise for critical water infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $111,000 to JMG VENTURES, LLC. DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE EXISTING SPRING BOX AT DOUBLE SPRINGS. THE SPRING BOX IS OLD, AND INFILTRATION IS OCCURRING. ADEQ IS REQUIRING THE SPRING BOX BE REPLACED OR UPGRADED TO PREVENT INFILTRATION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JMG VENTURES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $111,000.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-11-25. End: 2026-10-10.

What is the specific nature of the infiltration issue at the Double Springs, and what are the potential long-term consequences if not addressed?

The infiltration issue at the Double Springs spring box refers to the unwanted entry of surface water or groundwater into the structure that encloses the spring. This can occur due to cracks, faulty seals, or inadequate design of the existing, aging spring box. The primary consequence, as highlighted by the ADEQ requirement, is the potential contamination of the spring water source. This contamination can introduce pathogens, sediment, or chemical pollutants, rendering the water unsafe for intended uses (e.g., drinking water, irrigation). Long-term, continued infiltration can also compromise the structural integrity of the spring box itself, leading to more extensive damage and higher repair costs in the future. Addressing this is crucial for maintaining water quality and system reliability.

Can the value of $111,000 be benchmarked against similar spring box replacement projects in Arizona or other federal land management agencies?

Benchmarking the $111,000 contract value for the Double Springs spring box replacement requires access to a database of comparable projects. Factors influencing cost include the size and complexity of the spring box, the accessibility of the site, the extent of demolition required, the materials used, and local labor rates. Projects managed by other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the National Park Service (NPS) in similar arid or semi-arid environments might offer comparisons. However, without specific project details (e.g., cubic yards of concrete, dimensions, specific engineering requirements), a precise benchmark is difficult. Generally, infrastructure repairs on federal lands can be more costly due to logistical challenges and regulatory compliance. The fact that six bids were received suggests the price was competitive within the local market for this type of work.

What are the specific reasons for excluding other sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award, and does this exclusion impact overall cost-effectiveness?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' is somewhat contradictory and requires clarification. Typically, 'Full and Open Competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit offers. 'Exclusion of Sources' usually implies a limited or sole-source procurement where only specific contractors are solicited. If the award was truly 'Full and Open,' then no sources were excluded. If sources were excluded, it implies a justification was made, potentially due to specific technical requirements, past performance, or other factors that limited the pool of eligible bidders. If the exclusion was based on valid technical needs or unique capabilities, it might be justified. However, if sources were excluded unnecessarily, it could limit competition, potentially leading to higher prices than if a truly open competition had occurred. The fact that six bids were received suggests that even with potential exclusions, a reasonable number of competitors emerged.

What is JMG Ventures, LLC's track record with the Forest Service or other federal agencies, particularly on similar infrastructure or concrete manufacturing projects?

Information regarding JMG Ventures, LLC's specific track record with the Forest Service or other federal agencies is not provided in the data. To assess their reliability and performance history, one would typically review contract databases (like FPDS) for past awards, performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), and any history of claims or disputes. For a project involving concrete product manufacturing and infrastructure replacement, relevant experience would include previous work on water systems, concrete structures, and adherence to project timelines and budgets. Without this specific data, it's assumed the Forest Service conducted due diligence during the procurement process to ensure JMG Ventures, LLC possessed the necessary qualifications and experience for this task.

How does this $111,000 contract compare to the Forest Service's overall spending on infrastructure maintenance and water resource management in Arizona for fiscal years 2023-2024?

To compare this $111,000 contract to the Forest Service's overall spending in Arizona, we would need access to detailed budget and expenditure data for the agency's operations in the state. This would involve aggregating spending on infrastructure maintenance, water resource management, facility upgrades, and similar categories across all Arizona National Forests and regional offices. The $111,000 represents a relatively small, targeted investment for a specific, necessary repair. It is unlikely to represent a significant portion of the agency's total infrastructure budget, which often runs into millions of dollars for larger projects, land management activities, and facility upkeep across vast federal land holdings. This specific contract addresses a localized, regulatory-driven need.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing › Other Concrete Product Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 127EAX26Q0001

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 626 M ST, BEDFORD, IN, 47421

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $111,000

Exercised Options: $111,000

Current Obligation: $111,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline