DOT awards $6.2M for Level Island construction, with limited competition raising cost concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,242,097 ($6.2M)

Contractor: Brice Solutions, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2024-01-25

End Date: 2026-03-31

Contract Duration: 796 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: LEVEL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION RESTORATION

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $6.2 million to BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: LEVEL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION RESTORATION Key points: 1. The contract's fixed-price nature aims to control costs, but limited competition may have inflated the final award amount. 2. Limited competition for this construction project suggests potential challenges in achieving optimal market-driven pricing. 3. The duration of the contract (796 days) is substantial, increasing the risk of cost overruns or scope creep. 4. The project's focus on commercial and institutional building construction places it within a sector prone to material and labor cost fluctuations. 5. The award to BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, without robust competition, warrants scrutiny of their pricing and performance history. 6. Geographic location in Alaska (AK) may contribute to higher costs due to logistical challenges and specialized labor requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparable projects in similar remote locations. The fixed-price contract type is generally favorable for cost control, but the lack of robust competition limits the ability to assess if the $6.2 million award represents a fair market price. Given the remote location and specialized nature of construction in Alaska, costs are expected to be higher than mainland projects, but the absence of competitive bids makes it difficult to determine the extent of any potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' status, indicating that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not conduct a full and open competition. This suggests that only one source was deemed capable of meeting the requirements, or that specific circumstances justified a limited solicitation. The lack of multiple bidders significantly reduces the opportunity for price discovery and may lead to a higher contract value than if the contract had been competed more broadly.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the limited competitive environment, as the government did not benefit from the downward pressure on prices that typically arises from multiple bids.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, who secured a significant construction contract. The project will deliver construction and restoration services for Level Island, likely improving infrastructure or facilities. The geographic impact is localized to Level Island, Alaska (AK), potentially benefiting the local economy through employment and material sourcing. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs, potentially requiring specialized skills for working in a remote Alaskan environment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and lack of value for taxpayer money.
The 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' award justification needs thorough review to ensure it was appropriate.
Long contract duration increases the risk of unforeseen cost increases and schedule delays.
Performance history of BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC on similar projects should be rigorously assessed.
Logistical challenges in Alaska could lead to cost overruns not fully captured in the initial fixed-price award.

Positive Signals

The fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost certainty for the government.
The contract is awarded to a specific entity, implying a selection based on some criteria, even if limited.
The project addresses a specific need for construction and restoration, indicating a clear objective.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. The market for federal construction contracts is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This specific award to the FAA for work in Alaska represents a niche within the larger construction industry, likely involving specialized requirements due to the remote location and environmental conditions. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other federal construction projects in similar geographic regions or of similar scale and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications related to small business set-asides for this specific award. The absence of a small business set-aside means that larger firms were eligible and likely competed, or were the only ones considered. This contract does not appear to directly support the small business ecosystem through mandated subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the awarding agency. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. The Inspector General for the Department of Transportation would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Construction Contracts
Department of Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Commercial Building Construction Services
Alaska Federal Procurement
Fixed-Price Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Geographic Cost Factors (Alaska)
Long Contract Duration Risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $6.2 million to BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC. LEVEL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION RESTORATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-01-25. End: 2026-03-31.

What is the track record of BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the FAA or in Alaska?

A review of federal procurement data (such as FPDS) would be necessary to assess BRICE SOLUTIONS, LLC's track record. Key metrics to examine include the number of previous federal awards, their total value, the agencies they have contracted with, and their performance ratings on past projects. Specific attention should be paid to any prior contracts performed in Alaska or for the FAA, as these would be most relevant. A history of successful project completion, on-time delivery, and adherence to budget on similar projects would indicate a lower performance risk. Conversely, a history of contract disputes, performance issues, or cost overruns would raise concerns about their capability to execute this $6.2 million project effectively.

How does the $6.2 million award compare to similar construction projects in remote Alaskan locations?

Direct comparison is difficult without specific project details and cost breakdowns. However, construction costs in Alaska are generally known to be significantly higher than in the contiguous United States due to factors such as extreme weather, limited infrastructure, higher labor costs, and increased logistical challenges for material transport. A benchmark analysis would involve identifying other federal or state construction projects of similar scale (e.g., building size, scope of work) undertaken in remote Alaskan regions. Examining the cost per square foot or cost per functional unit (if applicable) from those projects could provide a basis for comparison. The limited competition for this contract makes it harder to ascertain if the $6.2 million represents a fair market price relative to what could have been achieved through robust bidding.

What specific risks are associated with a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' award for a construction project of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' (sole-source or limited competition) award is the potential for inflated pricing. Without the pressure of multiple bidders vying for the contract, the selected contractor may not offer the most competitive price. Other risks include a lack of innovation that might come from diverse approaches offered by multiple bidders, and potential concerns about the justification for limiting competition – was it truly necessary, or was it an administrative convenience? For a construction project, especially in a challenging environment like Alaska, risks also include potential quality issues if the contractor was not rigorously vetted through a competitive process, and schedule delays if the contractor lacks the capacity or experience, which might have been more apparent in a competitive evaluation.

What are the potential implications of the 796-day duration on cost and performance?

A contract duration of 796 days (over two years) for a $6.2 million construction project introduces several potential implications. For costs, a longer duration increases the exposure to market fluctuations in material prices (e.g., lumber, steel, concrete) and labor rates. While a fixed-price contract aims to mitigate this, significant unforeseen escalations could still strain the contractor or lead to change orders. Performance-wise, extended timelines increase the risk of scope creep, where additional requirements are added over time, potentially leading to cost increases and delays. Furthermore, maintaining consistent oversight and quality control over such a long period requires sustained effort from the contracting agency. Weather delays, particularly in Alaska, are also a significant factor that can extend the project timeline beyond initial estimates.

How does the geographic location in Alaska (AK) influence the contract's cost and execution?

The location in Alaska significantly influences both the cost and execution of this construction contract. Alaska presents unique logistical challenges: materials and equipment often need to be transported long distances, sometimes via air or specialized shipping, incurring higher freight costs. Labor costs are typically higher due to the cost of living and the demand for skilled workers willing to work in remote and harsh conditions. Furthermore, construction seasons can be shorter due to extreme weather, potentially extending project timelines and increasing costs associated with weather protection and delays. Environmental regulations specific to Alaska may also add complexity and cost to the project. These factors collectively contribute to a higher baseline cost for construction projects in Alaska compared to similar projects in the lower 48 states.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: 697DCK-24-R-00040

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3700 CENTERPOINT DR, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,242,097

Exercised Options: $6,242,097

Current Obligation: $6,242,097

Actual Outlays: $5,438,137

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline