DOD's $31M residential leasing contract with Hunt Building Company awarded in 2000, set to expire in 2088
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $31,176,451 ($31.2M)
Contractor: Hunt Building Company, Ltd
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2000-10-23
End Date: 2088-09-29
Contract Duration: 32,118 days
Daily Burn Rate: $971/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: TRAVIS AFB, SOLANO County, CALIFORNIA, 94535
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $31.2 million to HUNT BUILDING COMPANY, LTD for work described as: Key points: 1. Long-term contract duration raises questions about flexibility and potential for cost overruns. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer some cost certainty, but market shifts could impact value. 4. The contract's extensive duration could indicate a need for stable, long-term housing solutions. 5. Lack of small business set-aside suggests a focus on large-scale providers. 6. The contract's value and duration place it in a significant spending category for the agency.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's total value of $31.18 million over its nearly 88-year term averages to approximately $354,000 per year. Without specific benchmarks for residential leasing in the relevant geographic area (California), it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the extended duration suggests a need for predictable, long-term housing, which may justify a higher upfront or sustained investment compared to short-term leases. The fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but market fluctuations over such a long period could lead to either significant savings or unexpected costs for the government.
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 bids. The presence of 2 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While two bidders participated, the extent to which this competition effectively drove down prices is not immediately clear without knowing the nature of the bids and the government's negotiation strategy. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to vie for the contract, potentially leading to lower prices and better terms.
Public Impact
Provides housing for military personnel and their families stationed in California. Ensures stable and reliable residential facilities, contributing to military readiness and morale. Supports the local economy in California through rental payments and potential property maintenance activities. Impacts the workforce by potentially requiring property management and maintenance staff.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The extremely long contract duration (nearly 88 years) presents a significant risk of obsolescence and inflexibility in adapting to changing housing needs or market conditions.
- Potential for cost escalation over the decades due to unforeseen economic factors, inflation, or changes in service requirements.
- Limited visibility into the contractor's performance and cost management over such an extended period.
- The absence of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller, specialized providers in the local market.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a structured and transparent procurement process.
- The firm fixed-price contract type offers a degree of cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope remains consistent.
- The long duration suggests a strategic decision to secure long-term housing, potentially simplifying administrative overhead compared to frequent re-procurements.
- The contractor, Hunt Building Company, has a long history in government contracting, suggesting experience in managing large-scale projects.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the real estate and leasing sector, specifically focusing on residential property management for government entities. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 531110, 'Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings,' indicates the primary business activity. Comparable spending benchmarks for long-term residential leasing by government agencies are scarce due to the unique nature of such extended contracts. However, the total value suggests a substantial commitment to providing housing infrastructure.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. The absence of a set-aside suggests that the requirement was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, likely due to the scale or nature of the services required. This means that larger firms were the primary focus of the competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data, which could represent a missed opportunity for small business engagement in this significant federal expenditure.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Air Force's contracting and facilities management divisions. The long duration necessitates robust ongoing oversight to ensure compliance with contract terms, quality standards, and fair pricing. Transparency is facilitated by the contract's public award status. However, the Inspector General's office may have limited visibility into the day-to-day operational aspects over such an extended period without specific triggers or audits.
Related Government Programs
- Military Housing Privatization Initiative
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related housing
- Government Employee Housing Programs
- Department of Defense Facilities Management
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration
- Potential for cost escalation over time
- Lack of small business participation
- Limited transparency on specific performance metrics
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-air-force, residential-leasing, long-term-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, california, real-estate, housing
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $31.2 million to HUNT BUILDING COMPANY, LTD. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is HUNT BUILDING COMPANY, LTD.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $31.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-10-23. End: 2088-09-29.
What is the historical spending pattern for this specific contract since its award in 2000?
The provided data indicates a total award amount of $31,176,450.64 with an award date of 2000-10-23 and an estimated completion date of 2088-09-29. This suggests a long-term, potentially indefinite-delivery contract or a series of task orders under a base contract. Without access to the contract's performance history, specific annual spending figures, or details on task order issuance, it's impossible to detail the historical spending pattern. However, the sheer length of the contract implies a consistent, albeit potentially fluctuating, annual expenditure over the decades to cover leasing costs for residential properties.
How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to market rates for similar residential leases in California?
Determining the precise per-unit cost and comparing it to market rates is challenging with the given data. The contract covers 'Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings' (NAICS 531110) with a total value of over $31 million, but the number of units, types of dwellings, and specific locations within California are not specified. Market rates for residential leases in California vary dramatically by region and property type. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need to know the average number of units leased, the average lease term per unit, and the specific geographic sub-markets where these properties are located. Without this granular data, any comparison to market rates would be speculative.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Hunt Building Company's performance under this contract?
The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for residential leasing contracts, KPIs would focus on factors such as property maintenance and upkeep, response times to resident issues, tenant satisfaction, lease compliance, and adherence to safety and environmental regulations. Given the long duration, KPIs might also include long-term capital improvement plans and energy efficiency metrics. The effectiveness of oversight would depend on how rigorously these, or similar, KPIs are monitored and enforced by the Department of the Air Force throughout the contract's lifespan.
What is the risk associated with the extremely long contract duration (ending in 2088)?
The primary risk associated with a contract duration extending to 2088 is significant inflexibility and potential obsolescence. Market conditions, housing needs, technological advancements in property management, and even military deployment strategies can change drastically over nearly nine decades. The government may find itself locked into unfavorable terms or unable to adapt to new requirements. Furthermore, maintaining consistent oversight and ensuring the contractor remains motivated and efficient over such a prolonged period presents substantial management challenges. There's also a risk of unforeseen economic shifts, inflation, or regulatory changes that could impact the fixed-price agreement negatively for either party.
Were there any specific justifications provided for awarding such a long-term contract instead of shorter, renewable terms?
The provided data does not include the specific justifications for the contract's exceptionally long duration. However, such long-term agreements for residential leasing are often driven by the need for stable, predictable housing solutions for military personnel and their families, particularly in areas where acquiring or building government-owned housing is not feasible or cost-effective. Long-term contracts can sometimes offer economies of scale or allow the contractor to make significant capital investments in the properties, which might be amortized over the extended term. It could also reflect a strategic decision to minimize administrative burden associated with frequent re-procurements.
What is the potential impact of this contract on the local small business ecosystem in California?
Given that this contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not appear to have a small business set-aside ('sb': false), its direct impact on the local small business ecosystem might be limited. The primary contractor, Hunt Building Company, is likely a larger entity. While large federal contracts can sometimes lead to subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, there is no explicit information provided here about such requirements or outcomes. If Hunt Building Company does not actively engage small businesses for services like maintenance, repairs, or supplies, the contract's contribution to the broader small business economy in California could be minimal.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Lessors of Real Estate › Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
Product/Service Code: LEASE/RENT FACILITIES › LEASE/RENTAL OF BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Hunt Companies, Inc. (UEI: 136115255)
Address: 4401 N MESA ST STE 201, EL PASO, TX, 16
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-10-23
Current End Date: 2088-09-29
Potential End Date: 2088-09-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-11-01
More Contracts from Hunt Building Company, Ltd
- 200612!002154!5700!fa8903!hsw/Pkv !FA890304D8700 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20060922!20111211!008001349!129611351!136115255!n!hunt Building Company , Ltd !4401 N Mesa ST STE 201 !EL Paso !tx!79902!37200!047!28!keesler AFB !harrison !miss !+000004260700!n!n!000000000000!y169!other Residential Buildings !C2 !construction !000 !NOT Discernable !236115!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20081211!B! ! !A! !a!n!s!2!010!b! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !z!z!a!a!000!a!c!y! !N! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $290.4M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $86.4M (Department of Defense)
- 200306!162301!1700!C2470 !naval Facilities Engineering Com!n6247002c2052 !A!N! !N! !20030325!20060418!008001349!129611351!136115255!n!hunt Building Company, Ltd !4401 N Mesa !EL Paso !tx!79902!09900!133!37!camp Lejeune !onslow !N Carolina!+000038082000!n!n!000000000000!y161!family Housing Facilities !C2 !construction !2000!NOT Discernable or Classified !236117!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !B! !a!u!j!2!005!b! !D!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!y! !N! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $82.0M (Department of Defense)
- FY06 Replace & Improve Housing, Edwards AFB, CA Including Demolition of Obsolete Units and Construction of NEW Units — $58.2M (Department of Defense)
- Replace Military Family Housing AT Mountain Home AFB — $54.1M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)