DoD's $32.1M Dugway Proving Grounds facility contract awarded to Big-D Construction Corp

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,128,671 ($32.1M)

Contractor: Big-D Construction Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-07-26

End Date: 2018-03-20

Contract Duration: 2,063 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN-BUILD LIFE SCIENCE TEST FACILITY ADDITION, DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDS, UTAH

Place of Performance

Location: DUGWAY, TOOELE County, UTAH, 84022

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.1 million to BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP for work described as: DESIGN-BUILD LIFE SCIENCE TEST FACILITY ADDITION, DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDS, UTAH Key points: 1. The contract value of $32.1 million for a design-build life science facility addition represents a significant investment in specialized infrastructure. 2. Competition was robust, with 14 bids received, suggesting a healthy market for such specialized construction services. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that cost risks were largely borne by the contractor, potentially leading to greater price certainty. 4. The project duration of 2063 days (over 5 years) suggests a complex undertaking requiring extensive planning and execution. 5. The contract was awarded to Big-D Construction Corp., a company with a substantial presence in the construction sector. 6. The geographic location in Utah may indicate specific regional needs or capabilities for this type of facility.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking the $32.1 million cost for a design-build life science test facility addition is challenging without specific details on square footage, specialized equipment, and exact scope. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor assumed significant cost risk. The duration of over five years implies a complex project, and the number of bidders indicates competitive pricing was likely sought. Further analysis would require comparing this project to similar government or private sector life science facility constructions in terms of cost per square foot and specialized system integration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 14 bids received. This indicates a broad outreach to potential contractors and a competitive bidding process. The high number of bidders suggests that the market for design-build life science facilities is robust and that multiple firms were capable of undertaking this project. This level of competition is generally favorable for achieving competitive pricing and ensuring that the government receives a fair value for its investment.

Taxpayer Impact: A high level of competition means taxpayers benefit from potentially lower prices due to contractor efforts to win the bid. It also suggests a wider pool of qualified contractors was considered, increasing the likelihood of selecting the best value proposal.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its research personnel at Dugway Proving Grounds, who will gain enhanced capabilities for life science testing. The project delivers a new or expanded life science test facility, crucial for research, development, and testing of materials and biological agents. The geographic impact is concentrated in Utah, specifically at Dugway Proving Grounds, supporting regional economic activity through construction jobs and contractor presence. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, architects, and specialized technicians during the design and build phases.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long project duration (over 5 years) could introduce risks related to cost escalation if not managed tightly, despite the fixed-price nature.
Specialized nature of a life science test facility may require unique materials or technologies, potentially leading to unforeseen challenges or costs.
Reliance on a single prime contractor for both design and build could concentrate risk if the contractor faces financial or performance issues.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition with 14 bidders suggests a competitive environment that likely drove down initial pricing.
The award to Big-D Construction Corp., a known entity, may indicate a level of confidence in their capability to execute complex projects.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building, is a significant part of the federal procurement landscape. This contract falls within the specialized niche of designing and building advanced research facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar life science or high-containment laboratories can vary widely based on complexity, size, and specific technological requirements. Federal spending in this area often supports critical research and development missions across various agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions. While the prime contractor, Big-D Construction Corp., may utilize small businesses for subcontracting, there is no explicit requirement or analysis provided here regarding small business participation or subcontracting goals. The absence of set-aside information suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall proposal through broad competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. The firm-fixed-price nature provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver the specified facility within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through the federal procurement data system, which records contract awards. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Research and Development Facilities
Life Sciences Infrastructure
Design-Build Contracts
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs despite fixed-price.
Risk of delays due to complexity of specialized facility requirements.
Ensuring long-term operational and maintenance readiness post-construction.
Dependency on contractor's specialized design and construction expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.1 million to BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. DESIGN-BUILD LIFE SCIENCE TEST FACILITY ADDITION, DUGWAY PROVING GROUNDS, UTAH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-07-26. End: 2018-03-20.

What is the track record of Big-D Construction Corp. with federal contracts, particularly in specialized facilities?

Big-D Construction Corp. has a history of federal contracting, including projects for various government agencies. While specific details on their experience with life science test facilities require deeper investigation into past performance reports and project portfolios, their ability to win a competitive bid for this significant project suggests they possess relevant capabilities. Analyzing their past federal awards, including contract values, types, and client agencies, would provide a clearer picture of their expertise and reliability in executing complex government construction projects. Their performance on previous projects, including adherence to schedules and budgets, would be key indicators of their suitability for future endeavors.

How does the cost of this facility compare to similar government-funded life science labs?

Direct cost comparison for this $32.1 million design-build life science test facility addition is difficult without detailed project specifications, such as square footage, containment levels, specialized equipment integration (e.g., HVAC, biosafety cabinets, laboratory benches), and specific research capabilities. However, the firm-fixed-price contract and the competitive bidding process involving 14 offers suggest that the pricing was vetted through market forces. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare cost per square foot, cost of specialized systems, and overall project complexity against recently awarded similar facilities by agencies like the NIH, CDC, or other DoD components. The five-year duration also implies a substantial scope that influences the total cost.

What are the primary risks associated with a design-build contract for a specialized facility like this?

Key risks in a design-build contract for a specialized facility include potential conflicts between design and construction phases if not managed cohesively, integration challenges with highly specific scientific equipment, and ensuring the final facility meets stringent operational and safety requirements (e.g., biosafety levels). For the government, risks involve ensuring the contractor's design adequately meets all functional needs and that the fixed price remains competitive throughout the project lifecycle. Contractor-side risks include accurately estimating complex design and construction costs, managing unforeseen site conditions, and meeting performance specifications under a fixed-price agreement. The long duration also introduces risks related to material price fluctuations and labor availability.

What is the significance of the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type for this project?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is significant because it places the majority of the cost risk on the contractor, Big-D Construction Corp. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. For the government, this provides budget certainty and predictability, as the final cost is established upfront. While FFP contracts can incentivize contractors to control costs efficiently, they may also lead to higher initial bid prices to account for the contractor's risk. This contract type is generally preferred for projects with well-defined scopes and requirements, like the construction of a specialized facility, to minimize the potential for cost overruns.

How does the geographic location in Utah influence the contract or its execution?

The location in Utah, specifically at Dugway Proving Grounds, likely influences the contract by dictating logistical considerations, local labor market availability, and potentially specific state or local regulations applicable to construction. Dugway Proving Grounds is a large military installation, suggesting that access, security, and site-specific environmental considerations are paramount. The presence of a large federal facility may also mean established relationships with local construction firms or specific workforce dynamics. While the contract itself is federal, the execution phase will invariably involve local resources, supply chains, and potentially environmental compliance tied to the Utah location.

What does the number of bidders (14) suggest about the market for specialized construction services?

The fact that 14 bids were received for this design-build life science test facility addition strongly suggests a competitive and capable market for such specialized construction services. A high number of bidders indicates that multiple firms possess the necessary expertise, resources, and capacity to undertake complex government projects of this nature. This level of competition is generally beneficial for the government, as it tends to drive down prices, encourage innovation, and increase the likelihood of selecting a contractor that offers the best value. It implies that the requirements were clearly defined and accessible to a broad range of qualified contractors.

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: W9123812R0001

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 404 W 400 S, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84101

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,128,671

Exercised Options: $32,128,671

Current Obligation: $32,128,671

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline