DoD's $140M construction contract awarded to Bristol Construction Services, LLC, for facility maintenance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,031,390 ($14.0M)

Contractor: Bristol Construction Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-05

End Date: 2012-10-30

Contract Duration: 1,243 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITIY MATOC

Place of Performance

Location: FORT RILEY, GEARY County, KANSAS, 66442

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.0 million to BRISTOL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC for work described as: COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITIY MATOC Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm-fixed-price contract type, which shifts risk to the contractor. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long performance period and a significant contract value. 4. Performance context is within commercial and institutional building construction, a standard sector for facility maintenance. 5. Sector positioning is within the Defense sector, specifically for the Department of the Army's facility needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $140.3 million over approximately 3.4 years suggests a substantial investment in facility maintenance. Without specific details on the scope of work or comparable projects, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure generally aims to control costs by placing the onus on the contractor to manage expenses within the agreed-upon price. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facility maintenance contracts within the Department of Defense would provide a clearer picture of whether this pricing is competitive.

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 while the competition was broad, certain sources were initially excluded before the final award. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this suggests a competitive process that aimed to solicit bids from multiple qualified contractors. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' nature implies a significant number of potential offerors were considered.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price discovery and encouraging contractors to offer competitive pricing to win the award. This approach helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently by selecting the best value offer.

Public Impact

Military personnel and civilian employees benefit from well-maintained facilities, ensuring operational readiness and a safe working environment. Services delivered include the maintenance and repair of various commercial and institutional buildings within the Department of the Army's purview. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around the facilities managed by the Department of the Army, potentially across multiple installations. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction and maintenance personnel employed by Bristol Construction Services, LLC, and its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 3 years) could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost increases if not managed tightly.
The exclusion of sources in the competition, even if later resolved, warrants scrutiny to ensure fairness and prevent potential anti-competitive practices.
Reliance on a single large contract for extensive facility maintenance may limit flexibility in adapting to changing needs or incorporating new technologies.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type effectively transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive environment that should drive favorable pricing.
Award to a company with experience in commercial and institutional building construction indicates relevant expertise.

Sector Analysis

The commercial and institutional building construction sector is a vital part of the economy, encompassing a wide range of activities from new builds to maintenance and repair. Within the federal government, this sector is crucial for maintaining the vast inventory of buildings and infrastructure required for agency operations. Spending in this area is often driven by the need for operational readiness, safety, and compliance with building codes and environmental standards. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale facility maintenance and construction contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, or Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 requirements specifically mandated for small businesses within this award. The primary contractor, Bristol Construction Services, LLC, will likely manage the majority of the work. However, opportunities may arise for small businesses to participate as subcontractors if Bristol Construction Services chooses to engage them for specialized services or to meet broader subcontracting goals, though this is not a contractual obligation based on the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army contracting officers and program managers responsible for facility maintenance. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG, which provide public access to contract details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facility Maintenance Contracts
Commercial Building Construction Services
Institutional Building Maintenance
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
Federal Building Operations and Maintenance

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if contractor underestimates scope.
Risk of quality degradation if contractor prioritizes speed over thoroughness.
Dependency on a single contractor for critical facility maintenance.
Need for robust oversight to manage scope and ensure compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.0 million to BRISTOL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC. COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITIY MATOC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRISTOL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-05. End: 2012-10-30.

What is the track record of Bristol Construction Services, LLC with the Department of Defense and similar federal agencies?

Bristol Construction Services, LLC has a history of federal contract awards, primarily within the Department of Defense. Their experience spans various construction and facility maintenance projects. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any contract modifications, and the types of services previously rendered to the DoD and other agencies would provide insight into their reliability and capability. A review of their award history can reveal patterns in contract size, duration, and success rates, helping to assess their suitability for managing a contract of this magnitude and complexity. Specific details on past performance, including any disputes or challenges encountered, are crucial for a comprehensive evaluation.

How does the awarded amount of $140.3 million compare to similar facility maintenance contracts for the Department of the Army?

Benchmarking the $140.3 million award against similar facility maintenance contracts for the Department of the Army requires access to a database of comparable awards. Factors such as the scope of services (e.g., routine maintenance, major repairs, specific building types), geographic location, contract duration, and the specific installations covered are critical for a fair comparison. Without this granular data, it's difficult to definitively state if $140.3 million represents a high, low, or average expenditure. However, given the firm-fixed-price nature, the government aims to secure a defined set of services at a predetermined cost, suggesting an effort to control spending within this large sum.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this size and duration for facility maintenance?

The primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this magnitude ($140.3 million) and duration (over 3 years) for facility maintenance include potential contractor underestimation of costs, leading to quality compromises or contractor default. Conversely, if the contractor significantly overestimates, taxpayers may bear a higher cost than necessary. Scope creep, where the requirements expand beyond the original agreement without corresponding price adjustments, can also be a risk if not managed meticulously. Furthermore, unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations could impact the contractor's profitability and potentially lead to disputes or requests for modification. The long duration also increases the risk of the contractor's financial instability or changes in their operational capacity.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the operational readiness of the Department of the Army?

This contract is expected to have a positive impact on the operational readiness of the Department of the Army by ensuring that critical facilities are maintained in good working order. Well-maintained barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings, and maintenance depots are essential for supporting troop housing, training exercises, and daily operations. By outsourcing these maintenance services to Bristol Construction Services, LLC, the Army can focus its internal resources on core military functions. The timely and effective execution of maintenance and repair services under this contract should minimize downtime, prevent infrastructure failures, and contribute to a safe and functional environment for service members and civilian personnel.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method influence cost and competition?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method is a nuanced procurement approach. It begins with a broad solicitation, inviting all responsible sources to submit offers, but then allows for the exclusion of specific sources based on defined criteria (e.g., past performance, technical capabilities, or specific regulatory requirements). While it aims for broad competition initially, the subsequent exclusion can potentially limit the number of final bidders. The impact on cost and competition depends heavily on the justification for the exclusions. If exclusions are well-founded and based on objective criteria, the remaining competition can still be robust, leading to fair pricing. However, if exclusions are arbitrary or overly restrictive, it could reduce competition and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers.

What are the potential long-term implications of this contract for facility management within the Department of the Army?

This contract represents a significant investment in maintaining the Department of the Army's physical infrastructure. Its long duration suggests a strategic approach to facility management, aiming for continuity and potentially cost savings through a large, consolidated contract. The success of Bristol Construction Services, LLC in fulfilling this contract could influence future procurement strategies for facility maintenance, potentially leading to similar large-scale, long-term contracts. Conversely, any shortcomings in performance could prompt the Army to re-evaluate its approach, perhaps favoring smaller, more specialized contracts or increasing in-house maintenance capabilities. The contract's execution will provide valuable data on the effectiveness of outsourcing large facility maintenance portfolios.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Bristol BAY Native Corporation (UEI: 060036357)

Address: 111 W 16 AVE 3RD FL, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,031,390

Exercised Options: $14,031,390

Current Obligation: $14,031,390

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN08D0025

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline