DHS awards $4M construction quality assurance contract to Coho Construction Management LLC in Texas

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,000,000 ($4.0M)

Contractor: Coho Construction Management LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2026-01-16

End Date: 2026-08-15

Contract Duration: 211 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: THIS AWARD PROVIDES CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT ICE- OFFICE OF ASSET AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT (OAFM).

Place of Performance

Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79925

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $4.0 million to COHO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LLC for work described as: THIS AWARD PROVIDES CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT ICE- OFFICE OF ASSET AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT (OAFM). Key points: 1. Contract focuses on quality assurance for ICE's facility management, indicating a need for oversight in construction projects. 2. The award is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, suggesting a defined scope and cost control measures. 3. The duration of the contract is 211 days, which is relatively short for a construction-related service. 4. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost savings and broader market engagement. 5. The value of the contract is $4 million, which needs to be benchmarked against similar quality assurance services. 6. The contractor, Coho Construction Management LLC, is the sole awardee, highlighting a lack of competition for this specific requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $4 million for construction and design quality assurance services appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this nature, though specific benchmarks are unavailable without more detailed project scope. The firm fixed-price structure suggests a defined budget. However, the lack of competition makes it difficult to assess if this represents the best possible value for the government. Benchmarking against similar quality assurance contracts for federal facilities would provide a clearer picture of cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, or in specific circumstances where full and open competition is not feasible or advantageous. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the lowest possible price and potentially explore innovative solutions from a wider pool of contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not benefit from the competitive pricing that could have been achieved through a broader solicitation. The absence of multiple bids means the government accepted the price offered by the single source without direct comparison to other market participants.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its Office of Asset and Facility Management (OAFM), who will receive quality assurance services for their facilities. The services delivered will ensure the quality and compliance of construction and design projects managed by ICE. The contract has a geographic impact limited to Texas, where the facilities requiring oversight are located. The contract supports the operational needs of a federal law enforcement and security agency, indirectly benefiting national security and immigration management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition for a significant contract value raises concerns about potential overpayment and missed opportunities for cost savings.
Sole-source awards can limit the government's access to a broader range of innovative solutions and specialized expertise.
The short contract duration (211 days) might indicate a specific, time-sensitive need, but could also suggest a piecemeal approach to facility management oversight.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
The focus on quality assurance is crucial for ensuring the integrity and longevity of federal facilities.
The award to a specific contractor suggests they possess the necessary qualifications for this specialized service.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), which encompasses firms providing engineering consulting and design services. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, particularly for infrastructure, facility management, and specialized projects. The market for construction quality assurance is competitive, with many firms offering specialized expertise. However, specific sole-source awards like this one bypass typical market dynamics. Comparable spending benchmarks for quality assurance services on federal facilities vary widely based on project size, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the awardee, Coho Construction Management LLC, is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided details. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The absence of a set-aside means that larger firms were eligible to compete, and the focus was likely on specialized capabilities rather than small business participation goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Homeland Security's internal contracting and program management offices, specifically within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability through adherence to the agreed-upon scope and price. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award would be crucial for public accountability. The Inspector General for DHS would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

ICE Facility Management Contracts
DHS Construction Services
Federal Quality Assurance Services
Engineering Consulting Services for Government Facilities

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Limited performance data available

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $4.0 million to COHO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LLC. THIS AWARD PROVIDES CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT ICE- OFFICE OF ASSET AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT (OAFM).

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COHO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-01-16. End: 2026-08-15.

What is the track record of Coho Construction Management LLC in performing similar quality assurance services for federal agencies?

Information regarding the specific track record of Coho Construction Management LLC in performing similar quality assurance services for federal agencies is not detailed in the provided data. A thorough review would require accessing contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS to examine past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported issues. Understanding their experience with projects of comparable scale and complexity, particularly within the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is crucial for assessing their capability to deliver on this $4 million contract effectively and efficiently.

How does the $4 million contract value compare to similar construction quality assurance contracts awarded by federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $4 million contract value requires comparing it to similar construction and design quality assurance services procured by federal agencies, particularly for facility management. Without specific details on the scope of work, duration, and complexity of the projects being overseen, a precise comparison is challenging. However, for large-scale federal construction projects, quality assurance contracts can range from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, and the value should be assessed against the number of facilities, the types of construction involved, and the level of oversight required. A lack of competitive bidding makes it harder to ascertain if this represents optimal value.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The primary risks associated with awarding this contract on a sole-source basis include potential lack of cost savings due to the absence of competition, which could lead to the government paying a higher price than necessary. There's also a risk of reduced innovation, as a sole-source award limits the opportunity to benefit from diverse approaches and solutions that multiple bidders might offer. Furthermore, it raises concerns about transparency and fairness in the procurement process. Without a competitive bidding process, it's more difficult to ensure that the selected contractor is truly the best value provider across all relevant criteria, including technical capability, past performance, and price.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for this quality assurance service?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in managing costs for services where the scope of work can be clearly defined and is unlikely to change significantly. For quality assurance services, an FFP contract provides cost certainty to the government, as the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This structure incentivizes the contractor to perform efficiently to maintain profitability. However, the effectiveness hinges on the accuracy and completeness of the initial scope definition. If unforeseen issues arise during the construction projects being monitored, scope adjustments could lead to change orders, potentially increasing the overall cost.

What is the historical spending pattern for construction quality assurance services by ICE or DHS?

Historical spending patterns for construction quality assurance services by ICE or DHS are not provided in the current data. To analyze this, one would need to examine historical contract awards within these agencies, looking at the total dollar amounts spent on similar services over several fiscal years. This analysis would help identify trends, understand the typical scale of such contracts, and assess whether the current $4 million award aligns with past spending or represents a significant deviation. It would also reveal the frequency of sole-source versus competed awards in this category.

What are the implications of the contract's short duration (211 days) for the quality assurance process?

The contract's duration of 211 days (approximately 7 months) suggests it covers a specific phase or a limited number of construction and design projects managed by ICE's Office of Asset and Facility Management. A shorter duration can imply a focused scope, potentially covering pre-construction reviews, specific construction milestones, or post-construction closeouts. However, it might also indicate a need for ongoing, long-term quality assurance that is being addressed through multiple, short-term contracts, which could be less efficient than a single, longer-term award. The effectiveness will depend on whether this timeframe is sufficient to adequately oversee the quality of the construction activities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1577 C ST, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99501

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,380,400

Exercised Options: $4,000,000

Current Obligation: $4,000,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline