DoD's $106M Army Headquarters Building Contract Awarded to Caddell Construction for Commercial Building

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $106,110,638 ($106.1M)

Contractor: Caddell Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-05-29

End Date: 2012-02-12

Contract Duration: 989 days

Daily Burn Rate: $107.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 18

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 3RD ARMY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Place of Performance

Location: SHAW AFB, SUMTER County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29152

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $106.1 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: 3RD ARMY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING Key points: 1. The contract value of $106.1 million represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 989 days indicates a substantial construction project. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 5. The project is located in South Carolina, potentially impacting the local economy and workforce. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $106.1 million for a headquarters building appears reasonable given the scale and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale military construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests an effort to manage cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for government spending.

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 a bid. The presence of 18 bids suggests a competitive marketplace for this type of construction. A high number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers by driving down bids from qualified construction firms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new headquarters facility. The contract delivers a critical piece of infrastructure for military operations and administration. The project's geographic impact is centered in South Carolina, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy. The construction phase will likely involve a significant number of skilled laborers and tradespeople.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Ensuring compliance with environmental and safety regulations throughout the construction process.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive market.
Firm-fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost escalation risks.
Contractor has a track record in large-scale construction projects.
Project addresses a clear need for upgraded military infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for large-scale government facilities is often characterized by a few major players capable of handling complex projects. The $106.1 million award is substantial, placing it among significant infrastructure investments. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large military base construction or renovation projects.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the contract was not set aside for small businesses and the prime contractor is not identified as a small business. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but the extent of this is not detailed in the provided information. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the specific subcontracting plan.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions, given their role in awarding and managing construction contracts for the Department of Defense. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified facility within the agreed budget. Transparency is facilitated through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are publicly reported.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Army Base Modernization Projects
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting military readiness.
Ensuring compliance with all environmental and safety regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $106.1 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. 3RD ARMY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $106.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-05-29. End: 2012-02-12.

What is Caddell Construction Co., Inc.'s track record with large federal construction projects, particularly for the Department of Defense?

Caddell Construction Co., Inc. has a significant history of executing large-scale federal construction projects, including numerous contracts with the Department of Defense and other government agencies. They specialize in complex projects such as military barracks, training facilities, and administrative buildings. Their experience often includes working under stringent security requirements and tight deadlines typical of military construction. A review of their past performance on similar projects, including any past performance evaluations or awards, would provide further insight into their capabilities and reliability for a project of this magnitude.

How does the per-square-foot cost of this headquarters building compare to similar government construction projects?

Without the specific square footage of the 3rd Army Headquarters Building, a direct per-square-foot cost comparison is not possible. However, the total contract value of $106.1 million for a major facility suggests a significant investment. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable projects in terms of size, complexity, and location. Factors such as prevailing labor rates, material costs in South Carolina at the time of award (2009-2012), and specific design requirements would influence the per-square-foot cost. Generally, government construction costs can vary widely, but projects of this scale often aim for efficiency through competitive bidding and standardized designs where applicable.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a large construction project like this?

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are designed to provide cost certainty for the government, they can introduce risks for the contractor. For this 3rd Army Headquarters Building project, the primary risk for Caddell Construction would be absorbing unforeseen costs that exceed the contract price. This could arise from unexpected site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), design changes requested by the government, or significant increases in material and labor costs beyond what was reasonably anticipated. If such issues occur, the contractor might seek change orders, which can lead to disputes or impact the project's schedule. The government's risk is primarily that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if cost pressures become too high, though quality assurance measures are in place to mitigate this.

How effective are the competition levels (18 bidders) in ensuring optimal value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts?

A high level of competition, such as the 18 bidders for this contract, is generally a strong indicator of effective price discovery and a good opportunity for taxpayers to receive optimal value. When multiple qualified firms compete, they are incentivized to offer their most competitive pricing and best technical solutions to win the contract. This dynamic typically drives down prices compared to a sole-source or limited-competition scenario. The government benefits from a wider range of options and a more robust market assessment. However, the ultimate value depends on the thoroughness of the evaluation process to ensure the lowest bid is also from a responsible and capable contractor.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar military infrastructure projects awarded by the Department of Defense in recent years?

Historical spending on similar military infrastructure projects by the Department of Defense has been substantial, reflecting ongoing needs for modernization, expansion, and replacement of aging facilities. Projects often range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on scale and complexity. Factors influencing spending include geopolitical requirements, troop levels, technological advancements, and base realignment and closure (BRAC) initiatives. The average cost per square foot for military construction can vary significantly by region and building type, but often falls within a range comparable to large commercial projects, adjusted for specific military requirements. Analyzing trends in contract types (FFP vs. cost-plus) and competition levels over time can reveal shifts in procurement strategies and market conditions.

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

Solicitation ID: N6945009R1756

Offers Received: 18

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2700 LAGOON PARK DR, MONTGOMERY, AL, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $106,110,638

Exercised Options: $106,110,638

Current Obligation: $106,110,638

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline