DOT awards $51.6M for FAA facilities, with Flintco LLC securing the definitive contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $51,554,393 ($51.6M)

Contractor: Flintco, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2018-06-06

End Date: 2023-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,850 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MPB RENOVATIONS

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73169

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $51.6 million to FLINTCO, LLC for work described as: MPB RENOVATIONS Key points: 1. Contract value of $51.6 million represents a significant investment in federal infrastructure. 2. The definitive contract award suggests a well-defined scope of work and established requirements. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 4. The duration of 1850 days indicates a long-term project with substantial execution requirements. 5. Competition dynamics will be crucial to assess value for money over the contract's life. 6. Geographic focus on Oklahoma highlights regional infrastructure development priorities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $51.6 million for commercial and institutional building construction is substantial. Benchmarking against similar FAA or DOT construction projects would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to manage costs, but the ultimate value depends on the quality of work and adherence to schedule. Without specific performance metrics or cost breakdowns, a definitive assessment of cost-effectiveness is challenging, but the scale of the award implies a significant undertaking.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of two bidders suggests a competitive environment, though the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process are key to understanding the strength of this competition. A robust competition typically leads to better pricing and value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and encouraging a wider pool of qualified contractors to bid, potentially leading to cost savings.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits through the modernization and maintenance of its facilities. Construction services are delivered, improving operational capabilities and safety standards. The geographic impact is concentrated in Oklahoma, supporting regional economic activity and infrastructure. The project implies job creation and economic stimulus within the construction sector in Oklahoma.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during the long project duration.
Risk of schedule delays impacting FAA operational readiness.
Ensuring consistent quality of construction over an extended period.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process that could yield favorable pricing.
Long contract duration allows for phased execution and potential learning curve efficiencies.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. The Federal Aviation Administration's need for facility construction and renovation is a recurring requirement within the government's infrastructure spending. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar types of facilities, considering regional cost variations and project complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities offered by the prime contractor, Flintco, LLC. The extent of small business subcontracting will depend on Flintco's strategy and the specific requirements of the project, which could offer valuable experience and revenue streams for qualified small businesses in the region.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the FAA's project management team. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, performance standards, and inspection protocols. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Facilities Construction
Department of Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Commercial Building Construction Contracts
Large-Scale Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Potential for unforeseen site conditions in construction projects.
Contractor performance over extended periods requires diligent oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $51.6 million to FLINTCO, LLC. MPB RENOVATIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FLINTCO, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $51.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-06-06. End: 2023-06-30.

What is the track record of Flintco, LLC in performing similar large-scale federal construction contracts?

Flintco, LLC has a history of performing significant construction projects, including those for federal agencies. To assess their track record specifically for FAA or DOT facilities, a review of their past performance ratings on similar contracts would be necessary. This would involve examining data on their on-time delivery, budget adherence, quality of work, and overall client satisfaction. A detailed analysis would look for patterns in successful project completion versus any instances of disputes, delays, or performance issues. Understanding their experience with firm fixed-price contracts of this magnitude is also crucial for evaluating their capability to manage this specific award effectively.

How does the awarded amount of $51.6 million compare to similar FAA facility construction projects?

Comparing the $51.6 million award to similar FAA facility construction projects requires access to a database of historical federal contracts. Key comparison points would include the size and scope of the facilities being built or renovated, the geographic location (as construction costs vary regionally), and the specific types of construction services required. For instance, if this contract is for a new air traffic control tower versus a general administrative building, the cost per square foot or per project can differ significantly. Benchmarking against projects of similar duration (1850 days) and contract type (firm fixed-price) would also provide a more accurate assessment of whether this award represents a competitive and reasonable price for the government.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with a definitive contract of this size and duration?

The primary risk indicators for a definitive contract valued at $51.6 million and spanning 1850 days include potential for scope creep if not meticulously managed, the possibility of unforeseen site conditions impacting budget and schedule, and contractor performance degradation over a long period. The firm fixed-price nature, while beneficial for cost control, can increase risk for the contractor if initial estimates are inaccurate, potentially leading to pressure on quality or disputes. Furthermore, the long duration increases exposure to market fluctuations in material costs and labor availability. Effective risk mitigation would involve robust project management, contingency planning, and clear communication channels between the FAA and Flintco, LLC.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this FAA construction project?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money by transferring cost risk to the contractor. For this $51.6 million FAA construction project, the FFP structure incentivizes Flintco, LLC to manage costs efficiently and complete the work within the agreed-upon price. This provides budget certainty for the Department of Transportation. However, the effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimates and the contractor's ability to manage unforeseen circumstances. If the scope is well-defined and risks are adequately assessed upfront, FFP can lead to significant savings. Conversely, if the scope is ambiguous or major unforeseen issues arise, the contractor might face financial strain, potentially impacting quality or leading to change orders that erode the initial cost savings.

What are the historical spending patterns for FAA facility construction and maintenance?

Historical spending patterns for FAA facility construction and maintenance reveal a consistent need for infrastructure investment to support air traffic control, airport operations, and administrative functions. Annual budgets allocated to these areas fluctuate based on infrastructure modernization needs, safety upgrades, and capital improvement plans. Analyzing past spending data would show trends in contract values, types of services procured (new construction, renovation, specialized systems), and the distribution of funds across different geographic regions and facility types. Understanding these patterns helps contextualize the $51.6 million award, indicating whether it aligns with historical investment levels or represents a significant deviation, potentially due to a major new initiative or a backlog of deferred maintenance.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 6973GH-18-R-00009

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1624 W 21ST ST, TULSA, OK, 74107

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $51,613,584

Exercised Options: $51,554,393

Current Obligation: $51,554,393

Actual Outlays: $44,710,474

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline