DoD awards $8.1M construction contract for Weapons Release Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Fort Wayne, IN

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $8,142,469 ($8.1M)

Contractor: Armcorp Construction Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-01-16

End Date: 2026-04-30

Contract Duration: 835 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: NON-PERSONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION AT THE WEAPONS RELEASE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR AT THE 122D FIGHTER WING, FORT WAYNE, IN. CONTRACTOR WILL RENOVATE EXISTING 11,545 SF BLDG & ADD 8,948 SF OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING FACILITY.

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WAYNE, ALLEN County, INDIANA, 46809

State: Indiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $8.1 million to ARMCORP CONSTRUCTION INC for work described as: NON-PERSONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION AT THE WEAPONS RELEASE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR AT THE 122D FIGHTER WING, FORT WAYNE, IN. CONTRACTOR WILL RENOVATE EXISTING 11,545 SF BLDG & ADD 8,948 SF OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING FACILITY. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on renovating and expanding an existing aircraft maintenance hangar. 2. The project involves significant new construction alongside renovation of existing space. 3. The contract is a firm-fixed-price type, indicating defined scope and cost. 4. Competition was conducted under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources', suggesting a specific reason for source exclusion. 5. The contract duration is 835 days, spanning over two years. 6. The awardee, ARMCORP CONSTRUCTION INC, will be responsible for delivering the facility. 7. The project is located at the 122D Fighter Wing, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $8.1 million for the construction of an 11,545 sq ft renovation and 8,948 sq ft new construction for an aircraft maintenance hangar appears within a reasonable range for such specialized facilities. However, without specific details on the scope of work, materials, and labor costs, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar military construction projects of comparable size and complexity would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation of pricing and value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources'. This solicitation method implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded for specific, documented reasons, possibly related to security, specialized capabilities, or prior performance issues. The number of bidders (3) is relatively low for a federal construction contract, which could indicate a niche requirement or a challenging bidding environment. This limited competition may have implications for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited number of bidders suggests that taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing achievable through broader market engagement. The exclusion of certain sources, if not fully justified, could lead to higher costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force and the 122D Fighter Wing, who will receive an upgraded and expanded maintenance facility. The services delivered include comprehensive construction services for a specialized military aviation facility. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Wayne, Indiana, supporting the operations of the National Guard unit stationed there. The project will likely create temporary employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the local Indiana area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is a potential concern as it limits the pool of eligible bidders and may not yield the most competitive pricing.
The relatively low number of bidders (3) for a significant construction project raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential price inflation.
The specific reasons for excluding sources are not detailed, which could mask underlying issues or justify higher costs.

Positive Signals

The contract is a firm-fixed-price type, which provides cost certainty for the government and shifts risk to the contractor.
The project aims to improve critical infrastructure for military aviation maintenance, enhancing operational readiness.
The awardee, ARMCORP CONSTRUCTION INC, is a construction company, suggesting relevant industry experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for specialized military facilities. The market for military construction is often characterized by unique requirements, stringent security protocols, and specific performance standards. While general construction benchmarks exist, military hangar construction can command premium pricing due to these specialized demands. The total federal spending on construction services is substantial, and this contract represents a portion of the Department of Defense's investment in maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific award. There is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals. This suggests that the primary contractor is expected to handle the majority of the work, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this particular contract may be limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and relevant personnel within the Department of the Army and the 122D Fighter Wing. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by fixing the cost. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, though detailed project-specific oversight mechanisms and inspector general jurisdiction would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the contract and any associated regulations.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Air National Guard Facilities
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Cost Overruns due to Long Duration
Unspecified Reasons for Source Exclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $8.1 million to ARMCORP CONSTRUCTION INC. NON-PERSONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION AT THE WEAPONS RELEASE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR AT THE 122D FIGHTER WING, FORT WAYNE, IN. CONTRACTOR WILL RENOVATE EXISTING 11,545 SF BLDG & ADD 8,948 SF OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING FACILITY.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ARMCORP CONSTRUCTION INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $8.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-01-16. End: 2026-04-30.

What specific factors contributed to the exclusion of certain sources in this 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award?

The specific reasons for excluding sources in a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award are typically documented in the contract file and justification for the procurement strategy. Common reasons include national security concerns, requirements for highly specialized or proprietary technology, or instances where only a limited number of responsible sources possess the necessary capabilities. For this particular contract, the exclusion might be related to specific security clearances required for personnel working on sensitive aircraft, unique construction techniques mandated by the Department of Defense for aviation facilities, or perhaps prior performance issues with certain contractors. Without access to the detailed justification document, the precise reasons remain speculative, but they are intended to ensure the integrity and security of the project and the facility.

How does the $8.1 million cost compare to similar aircraft maintenance hangar construction projects?

Benchmarking the $8.1 million cost requires detailed comparison with similar projects. Factors influencing cost include square footage, complexity of the structure (e.g., specialized ventilation, heavy-duty flooring, crane systems), geographic location (labor and material costs), and specific military requirements. A renovation of 11,545 sq ft combined with an 8,948 sq ft new build suggests a substantial project. If comparable military hangars of similar size and complexity have been built or renovated in the past few years, their costs could serve as a benchmark. For instance, if similar projects ranged from $700 to $1,000 per square foot (considering both new and renovation aspects), this project's total cost would fall within that range, suggesting fair pricing. However, a definitive assessment requires access to detailed project specifications and cost breakdowns.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a project of this duration?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts, while offering cost certainty, can introduce risks, especially for long-duration projects like this 835-day contract. The primary risk for the contractor is underestimating costs, leading to reduced profit margins or even losses if material prices escalate significantly, labor costs increase unexpectedly, or unforeseen site conditions arise that are not covered by contract contingencies. For the government, the risk is paying a premium upfront to account for the contractor's risk. If the contractor inflates their bid to cover potential risks, the government might overpay. Effective management by the government, including clear scope definition and proactive monitoring of progress and potential issues, is crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the project is completed within budget and to specification.

What is the significance of the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code for this contract?

The NAICS code 236220, 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction,' signifies that the primary activity of this contract involves the construction of buildings that are not primarily residential. This includes a wide range of structures such as office buildings, warehouses, educational facilities, and, in this case, specialized military facilities like aircraft maintenance hangars. For federal procurement, this code helps categorize the type of work being performed, allowing agencies to identify relevant contractors and track spending across different construction sub-sectors. It indicates that the project requires general building construction expertise, potentially including structural work, roofing, interior finishing, and utility installations, tailored to the specific needs of an institutional client like the Department of Defense.

How does the contract duration of 835 days impact project oversight and potential cost overruns?

A contract duration of 835 days (approximately 2.3 years) is substantial for a construction project. This extended timeline increases the potential for various risks, including inflation of material and labor costs, changes in regulatory requirements, and potential contractor performance degradation over time. For government oversight, a longer duration necessitates sustained monitoring and management to ensure the contractor remains on schedule and within budget, especially under a firm-fixed-price contract where scope creep must be rigorously controlled. It also provides more opportunities for unforeseen issues to arise, such as environmental conditions or discovery of existing structural problems during renovation, which could lead to change orders and potential cost increases if not managed effectively through contract clauses and proactive communication.

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

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W50S7W23B0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8511 STATE ROUTE 703, CELINA, OH, 45822

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $8,142,469

Exercised Options: $8,142,469

Current Obligation: $8,142,469

Actual Outlays: $644,904

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline