DOT awards $31.6M construction contract to Flintco, LLC for new FAA facility in Oklahoma

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,553,940 ($31.6M)

Contractor: Flintco, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2021-06-21

End Date: 2024-07-01

Contract Duration: 1,106 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CAMI WIWAVES NEW FACILITY WO#14-002117

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73169

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $31.6 million to FLINTCO, LLC for work described as: CAMI WIWAVES NEW FACILITY WO#14-002117 Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but could limit flexibility for unforeseen issues. 3. The contract duration of 1106 days indicates a significant, long-term construction project. 4. The award to a single contractor, Flintco, LLC, warrants examination of their capacity and past performance. 5. The project's location in Oklahoma positions it within a specific regional economic and construction landscape. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities should be reviewed.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $31.6 million contract for a new FAA facility requires detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar construction projects in the region and sector. Without specific cost drivers or comparable project data, assessing the precise value-for-money is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to control costs, though it may not fully account for potential material or labor fluctuations over the nearly three-year duration. Further analysis would involve comparing the per-square-foot cost and specific construction elements against industry standards.

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. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. While three bidders are better than one, a higher number could potentially drive prices down further. The specific details of the bidding process, including the evaluation criteria and the spread between bids, would provide a clearer picture of the competitive dynamics and their impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower prices and better terms. The 'full and open' nature of this competition suggests that the government sought the best value from a wide pool of potential contractors, which is a positive indicator for fiscal responsibility.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which will gain a new facility, and the contractor, Flintco, LLC, through revenue generation. The project will deliver a new commercial and institutional building, likely supporting FAA operations and personnel. The geographic impact is concentrated in Oklahoma, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy through construction activities and material sourcing. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, project managers, engineers, and support staff during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occur, despite the fixed-price contract.
Dependence on a single prime contractor, Flintco, LLC, could pose risks if performance issues arise.
The long duration of the project increases exposure to market volatility in labor and materials.
Limited visibility into subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, as the prime contractor is not a small business and no set-aside was specified.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, Flintco, LLC, has a track record that can be reviewed for performance history.
The project is located in Oklahoma, potentially benefiting the local economy and workforce.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by the need for new facilities, upgrades, and infrastructure across various government agencies. The FAA, as a major federal entity, regularly procures construction services for its operational needs. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing its cost per square foot and specific construction elements against similar government or large-scale commercial building projects, considering regional labor and material costs.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor, Flintco, LLC, is not identified as a small business. This means that opportunities for small businesses will primarily be through subcontracting. The extent to which Flintco, LLC will engage small businesses for specialized services or materials will be crucial in determining the contract's impact on the small business ecosystem. Further investigation into the contractor's subcontracting plan and historical performance with small businesses would be beneficial.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and payment milestones. Transparency can be assessed through publicly available contract data, such as that provided by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Facilities Construction
Department of Transportation Construction Contracts
Commercial Building Construction
Government Facility Development
Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Firm fixed-price contract may not fully account for unforeseen cost escalations.
Limited information on small business subcontracting opportunities.
Dependence on a single prime contractor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $31.6 million to FLINTCO, LLC. CAMI WIWAVES NEW FACILITY WO#14-002117

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 $31.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-06-21. End: 2024-07-01.

What is Flintco, LLC's track record with similar federal construction projects, particularly for aviation-related facilities?

Assessing Flintco, LLC's track record requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, specifically those involving the construction of institutional or aviation-related facilities. Data from systems like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would provide insights into their on-time delivery, quality of work, and adherence to budget on previous projects. Examining their portfolio for similar-sized projects and their experience with government contracting regulations and requirements is crucial. A history of successful, timely, and cost-effective project completion would indicate a lower risk for this current FAA facility contract. Conversely, a pattern of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues would raise concerns about their capacity and reliability.

How does the awarded price of $31.6 million compare to the average cost of similar FAA facility construction projects?

To benchmark the $31.6 million award, we would need to compare it against the average cost per square foot or per functional unit (e.g., per office space, per lab area) for similar FAA facilities constructed in recent years. Factors such as geographic location (influencing labor and material costs), specific building requirements (e.g., security, specialized equipment), and the overall economic climate at the time of construction are critical for a fair comparison. If this contract's cost per square foot is significantly higher than comparable projects, it could indicate potential overpricing or unique project complexities. Conversely, a price below the average might suggest favorable market conditions or efficient bidding. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns and a database of comparable projects, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this firm fixed-price contract for a long-duration construction project?

The primary risk indicator for this firm fixed-price contract, especially given its 1106-day duration, is the potential for cost escalation that is not fully captured by the fixed price. While the fixed price offers budget certainty, it places the risk of unforeseen cost increases (e.g., material price spikes, labor shortages, regulatory changes) on the contractor. If the contractor underestimated these risks or if market conditions change dramatically, they might seek change orders, potentially leading to cost increases, or face financial strain, impacting project completion. Another risk is the contractor's ability to maintain quality and performance over such an extended period. The long duration also increases the likelihood of encountering unexpected site conditions or design challenges that could lead to disputes or delays.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' process likely to be in ensuring optimal value for this specific construction project?

The 'full and open competition' process is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring optimal value, as it allows the widest possible pool of qualified contractors to bid. For this FAA facility construction, it means the government likely received proposals from numerous companies, increasing the probability of selecting a contractor that offers the best combination of price, technical capability, and past performance. The fact that three bids were received suggests a reasonable level of competition. However, the ultimate effectiveness depends on the clarity of the solicitation, the rigor of the evaluation criteria, and the government's ability to accurately assess the proposals. If the competition was robust and the evaluation thorough, it significantly increases the likelihood of achieving good value for taxpayers.

What are the historical spending patterns for FAA facility construction, and how does this contract fit within them?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for FAA facility construction would involve examining aggregate data on the number, value, and types of construction contracts awarded by the FAA over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in investment, average contract values, and the distribution of work across different regions and contractors. This $31.6 million contract for a new facility in Oklahoma appears to be a significant investment, likely falling within the typical range for major construction projects of this nature. Understanding historical spending can help identify whether this award represents a typical expenditure, an increase in investment, or a deviation from established patterns, providing context for its fiscal significance.

What are the implications of the contract being awarded to a single entity (Flintco, LLC) rather than multiple smaller contracts?

Awarding a large project like this to a single entity, Flintco, LLC, offers benefits such as streamlined management, single point of accountability, and potentially economies of scale for the contractor. This can lead to more efficient project execution and reduced administrative overhead for the government. However, it also concentrates risk with one contractor. If Flintco, LLC underperforms or faces financial difficulties, the entire project could be jeopardized. Furthermore, it limits opportunities for smaller, specialized firms to directly contract with the government on this specific project, although they might still participate as subcontractors. The decision to award a single contract often reflects the complexity and scale of the project, where a single, capable prime contractor is deemed most efficient.

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-21-R-00001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 323 E RECONCILIATION WAY, TULSA, OK, 74120

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: $31,553,940

Exercised Options: $31,553,940

Current Obligation: $31,553,940

Actual Outlays: $30,647,985

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline