DoD's $34.3M construction contract with Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc. awarded in 2004, spanning over 12 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,339,032 ($34.3M)

Contractor: Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-06-18

End Date: 2017-04-14

Contract Duration: 4,683 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22202

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.3 million to COAKLEY & WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's extended duration suggests a long-term need for construction services, potentially indicating stability but also a risk of cost escalation over time. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract likely benefited from a competitive bidding process, which can lead to better pricing. 3. The fixed-price incentive (FPI) contract type introduces performance targets, aiming to balance cost control with contractor motivation. 4. With a duration of nearly 13 years, the contract's value per year is approximately $2.64 million, providing context for its overall scale. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to boost small business participation. 6. The contract's focus on commercial and institutional building construction places it within a broad but essential sector of the economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific deliverables or comparable projects. However, the total value of over $34 million spread across nearly 13 years suggests a significant investment in construction services. The fixed-price incentive structure implies an expectation of cost control, but the long duration could introduce risks of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Comparing it to similar large-scale DoD construction projects would provide a clearer picture of its value-for-money.

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. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to more favorable pricing and innovative solutions for the government. The fact that it was competed broadly suggests that the government sought the best value from the widest possible pool of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives competitive pricing and that public funds are used efficiently. It minimizes the risk of contractors overcharging due to a lack of alternatives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense, which receives the constructed facilities, and potentially the workforce employed by Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc. and its subcontractors. The services delivered involve commercial and institutional building construction, which could include new facilities, renovations, or maintenance of existing structures. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the specific DoD installations where the construction projects are located, primarily in Virginia. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, project managers, engineers, and support staff involved in the execution of the contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (nearly 13 years) increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation and unforeseen project changes.
Fixed-price incentive contracts can lead to disputes if performance targets are not clearly defined or are subject to interpretation.
Lack of specific details on the construction projects makes it difficult to assess the true value and potential risks.
The contract's age (awarded in 2004) means current market conditions and technologies may differ significantly from those at the time of award.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process and potential for competitive pricing.
The fixed-price incentive structure aims to align contractor performance with government objectives, potentially leading to better outcomes.
The substantial value indicates a significant project likely addressing critical DoD infrastructure needs.
The contractor, Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc., has a track record that can be further investigated for performance history.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220), a broad category encompassing the construction of non-residential buildings. The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services, particularly for military bases, administrative facilities, and research centers. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction contracts awarded by federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense, for similar types of facilities and project scopes.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly indicate subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best value through open competition rather than specifically promoting small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting agency (Department of Defense, specifically Washington Headquarters Services) and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed project-specific information might be limited. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Federal Building and Fire Safety
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Construction Services Contracts
Architectural and Engineering Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation.
Fixed-price incentive contracts require careful monitoring of performance targets.
Lack of specific project details limits risk assessment.
Contract awarded in 2004; current market conditions may differ.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.3 million to COAKLEY & WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COAKLEY & WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Washington Headquarters Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-06-18. End: 2017-04-14.

What specific types of buildings or facilities were constructed or renovated under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) for the Department of Defense. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the construction projects. These could range from administrative offices, barracks, training facilities, research laboratories, or maintenance depots. Without further details, it's impossible to ascertain the specific types of buildings. To answer this, one would need to access contract line item details or project descriptions within the Department of Defense's procurement records or through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

How did the final cost compare to the initial target cost, given the fixed-price incentive structure?

The fixed-price incentive (FPI) contract type implies that there was a target cost, target profit, and a ceiling price, with provisions for sharing cost savings or overruns between the government and the contractor. To determine how the final cost compared to the target, one would need to examine the contract's completion reports and financial modifications. This information is typically found in the contract's official file or procurement history. If the contractor met or exceeded performance targets, the government might have paid less than the ceiling price. Conversely, if targets were missed, the government might have paid closer to the ceiling, or potentially more if ceiling price adjustments were permitted under specific contract clauses. Without access to these detailed financial records, a precise comparison cannot be made.

What were the performance targets and incentives established in the contract?

Fixed-price incentive contracts are designed with specific performance targets that, if met or exceeded by the contractor, can lead to increased profit for the contractor and potentially cost savings for the government. These targets often relate to factors such as schedule adherence, quality of work, specific technical performance metrics, or cost control. The exact performance targets and the associated incentive structure (e.g., cost sharing ratios) would be detailed within the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and the special contract clauses. Accessing these specific contract documents would be necessary to identify the precise metrics and incentives that governed this particular $34.3 million construction contract.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction services by the Department of Defense in the Washington Headquarters Services region?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar construction services by the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) region requires accessing and aggregating procurement data over several fiscal years. This would involve filtering federal procurement databases (like FPDS) for contracts awarded by WHS or other DoD entities within that geographic area, categorized under relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 236220 for commercial/institutional building construction, or others related to heavy/civil engineering construction if applicable). Trends would be assessed by looking at the number of contracts, total obligated amounts, and average contract values year-over-year. This analysis would reveal whether spending in this sector has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and identify any significant fluctuations or patterns.

Has Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc. had any past performance issues or disputes on similar government contracts?

To assess Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc.'s past performance issues or disputes on government contracts, one would need to consult performance evaluation records (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), contract award histories, and potentially legal or claims databases. Publicly available information might include news reports of litigation or significant contract disputes. A thorough review would involve searching procurement databases for awards made to this contractor, examining their performance ratings on those contracts, and looking for any documented instances of contract terminations, claims filed, or adverse actions. Without direct access to these detailed performance records, it is difficult to definitively state their history of issues.

What is the estimated value of the contract on a per-year basis, and how does this compare to industry averages for similar projects?

This contract, valued at $34,339,031.51 and spanning approximately 4683 days (about 12.8 years), has an average annual value of roughly $2.68 million ($34.3M / 12.8 years). Comparing this to industry averages for similar construction projects requires defining 'similar' by project type (e.g., office buildings, specialized facilities), scale, and location. Industry benchmarks for construction project costs per square foot or per unit of functionality can be obtained from construction cost estimating databases (e.g., RSMeans) or industry reports. However, direct comparison is complex due to variations in project scope, complexity, labor costs, and specific government requirements. This figure provides a baseline for understanding the contract's financial scale relative to its duration.

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

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 16 SOUTH SUMMIT AVENUE, SU, GAITHERSBURG, MD, 20877

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline