Department of Defense awards $39M construction contract to Chickasaw Nation Industries for Fort Campbell facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,058,096 ($39.1M)

Contractor: Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-04-07

End Date: 2010-09-15

Contract Duration: 2,352 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200410!001219!2100!W91248!ACA, FORT CAMPBELL !W9124804C0011 !A!N! !N! ! !20040701!20040618!070347435!070347435!070848361!N!CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, I!2020 ARLINGTON !ADA !OK!74820!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRISTIAN !KENTUCKY !+000000349489!N!N!000025270957!Z119!MAINT/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !236220!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !N!Z!B!U!J!1!001!N!5A!D!N!C! ! !N!A!N!N!E! ! ! !D!A!00 !A!B!Y!S!N! ! ! !W34GM1!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: ADA, PONTOTOC County, OKLAHOMA, 74820

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.1 million to CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, INC for work described as: 200410!001219!2100!W91248!ACA, FORT CAMPBELL !W9124804C0011 !A!N! !N! ! !20040701!20040618!070347435!070347435!070848361!N!CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, I!2020 ARLINGTON !ADA !OK!74820!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRI… Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating clear cost expectations. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost savings through competition. 3. Significant duration of over 6 years suggests a large-scale, long-term project. 4. The contractor, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., is a significant entity in government contracting. 5. The contract falls under the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code. 6. Awarded to a single bidder, highlighting a lack of competitive pressure on pricing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $39 million over approximately 6.5 years represents a substantial investment in facility maintenance and construction. Without comparable contract data for similar projects at Fort Campbell or within the Department of Defense, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the lack of competition suggests that taxpayers may not have benefited from the potentially lower prices that a competitive bidding process could have yielded. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty but does not inherently guarantee optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source is available or when it is in the best interest of the government. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no direct price competition, which can sometimes lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The specific justification for the sole-source award is not detailed here but is crucial for understanding the procurement rationale.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage competition to drive down prices, potentially resulting in higher expenditures for taxpayers. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the selected contractor offered the most cost-effective solution available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and its personnel stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who will utilize the improved facilities. The contract delivers essential maintenance and construction services for administrative and service buildings, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, supporting military infrastructure in the region. The contract supports jobs within the construction sector, particularly for the contractor, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have led to a higher price than a competed contract.
Long contract duration could introduce risks related to changing requirements or economic conditions.
Sole-source awards warrant scrutiny to ensure they are justified and in the government's best interest.

Positive Signals

Award to Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., potentially supporting a business with ties to Native American communities.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Focus on essential facility maintenance and construction ensures critical infrastructure is addressed.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on commercial and institutional buildings. The U.S. construction market is vast, with significant government spending allocated to military base infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale construction and maintenance contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of facilities at military installations across the country.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses and was awarded to a large business entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without a small business set-aside or specific subcontracting goals, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular award is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, as public details on the justification and negotiation process are not readily available.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Construction
Facility Maintenance Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement
Construction Services
Fort Campbell Operations

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition.
Long contract duration may pose risks.
Need for robust oversight due to sole-source nature.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.1 million to CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, INC. 200410!001219!2100!W91248!ACA, FORT CAMPBELL !W9124804C0011 !A!N! !N! ! !20040701!20040618!070347435!070347435!070848361!N!CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, I!2020 ARLINGTON !ADA !OK!74820!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRISTIAN !KENTUCKY !+000000349489!N!N!000025270957!Z119!MAINT/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !000 !* !236220!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHICKASAW NATION INDUSTRIES, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-04-07. End: 2010-09-15.

What is the track record of Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc. (CNI) has a significant history of receiving federal contracts, primarily within the Department of Defense. As a tribally-owned entity, CNI often leverages specific contracting advantages. Their portfolio typically includes construction, base operations support, and other services. Analyzing CNI's past performance, including on-time delivery, quality of work, and any past disputes or contract modifications, would provide further insight into their reliability for this specific Fort Campbell project. Historical data suggests they are a frequent recipient of large-scale government contracts, indicating established relationships and capabilities within the federal contracting landscape.

How does the $39 million contract value compare to similar construction projects at other military installations?

Directly comparing the $39 million value without specific project scope details is challenging. However, large-scale construction and renovation projects at major military installations often range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. For context, similar projects involving the construction or significant renovation of administrative and service buildings at bases of comparable size to Fort Campbell could fall within this value range. The duration of over six years also suggests a substantial scope of work. To provide a more precise benchmark, one would need to identify contracts with identical or highly similar scopes of work (e.g., new construction vs. renovation, specific building types) awarded around the same time period.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for a construction project of this magnitude?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, the government may not achieve the most cost-effective outcome. Other risks include a potential lack of innovation if the contractor is not incentivized to explore more efficient methods, and a reduced level of transparency in the procurement process. Furthermore, if the sole-source justification is weak or if there are underlying issues with the chosen contractor's capabilities that were not fully vetted due to the lack of competition, project delays or cost overruns could occur. Ensuring robust oversight becomes even more critical in sole-source situations.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the operational effectiveness and infrastructure of Fort Campbell?

This contract is expected to significantly enhance the operational effectiveness and infrastructure of Fort Campbell by ensuring that critical administrative and service buildings are well-maintained, modernized, or constructed. Upgraded facilities contribute to a better working and living environment for service members and civilian personnel, which can improve morale and productivity. Reliable infrastructure is fundamental to the base's ability to conduct training, deploy forces, and support its mission. The completion of these construction and maintenance tasks will likely reduce future repair costs and minimize disruptions caused by deteriorating facilities.

How has federal spending on construction contracts for military bases evolved over the period this contract spans (2004-2010)?

The period between 2004 and 2010 was marked by significant military operations and subsequent infrastructure needs, particularly following the September 11th attacks and during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Federal spending on construction, including for military bases, generally saw an increase during this era to support troop presence, modernization efforts, and operational readiness. Contracts like this one for Fort Campbell would have been part of a broader trend of investment in military infrastructure. Analyzing overall DoD construction budgets and contract awards during these years would reveal the scale and priorities of federal spending on base facilities.

What are the implications of the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code for this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction,' signifies that the primary purpose of this contract is the construction or renovation of buildings intended for commercial or institutional use, rather than residential, industrial, or heavy civil engineering projects. For Fort Campbell, this would encompass buildings such as administrative offices, barracks, training facilities, commissaries, chapels, and other service-related structures. This classification helps in benchmarking the contract against similar construction projects and understanding the specific types of construction expertise and labor required.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chickasaw Nation (UEI: 070848361)

Address: 2020 ARLINGTON, ADA, OK, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $546,543

Exercised Options: $546,543

Current Obligation: $39,058,096

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline