DoD awards $25.87M construction contract to RED EAGLE JV for work in Louisiana

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,867,211 ($25.9M)

Contractor: RED Eagle JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-04-21

End Date: 2025-11-19

Contract Duration: 943 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.4K/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: ALL WORK REQUIRED BY CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003 AND 0004

Place of Performance

Location: BARKSDALE AFB, BOSSIER County, LOUISIANA, 71110

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.9 million to RED EAGLE JV for work described as: ALL WORK REQUIRED BY CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003 AND 0004 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for commercial and institutional building construction, indicating a need for facility development. 2. The contract type is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, suggesting cost certainty for the government. 3. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, implying a broad but potentially filtered search for bidders. 4. The contract duration is 943 days, indicating a significant, long-term construction project. 5. The award amount of $25.87 million positions this as a substantial investment in infrastructure. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to the general commercial and institutional building construction sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $25.87 million for a 943-day construction project requires benchmarking against similar projects to assess value. Without specific deliverables or scope details, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost predictability, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the construction.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the main solicitation. The presence of 3 bidders indicates a moderate level of competition for this specific construction project.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and capabilities, potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the construction of necessary facilities. The contract supports the development of commercial and institutional buildings, likely for military or related government use. The geographic impact is concentrated in Louisiana, where the construction work will take place. The project will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within Louisiana.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs despite fixed-price contract.
Risk of delays impacting facility readiness if construction challenges arise.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage complex construction logistics.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract offers cost certainty to the government.
Multiple bidders suggest a competitive environment that can drive quality and efficiency.
The definitive contract structure allows for flexibility within defined parameters.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant part of the broader construction industry. This sector involves the building of non-residential structures such as offices, retail spaces, and public facilities. The award amount of $25.87 million is substantial for a single project within this category, suggesting a complex or large-scale construction undertaking. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar government or private sector construction in the region.

Small Business Impact

The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. The fact that the award went to 'RED EAGLE JV' suggests a joint venture, which may or may not involve small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, in this project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this definitive contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of project milestones and any modifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Contract Awarded to Joint Venture
Potential for Limited Competition Due to Source Exclusion
Long Duration Project (943 days)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.9 million to RED EAGLE JV. ALL WORK REQUIRED BY CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003 AND 0004

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RED EAGLE JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-04-21. End: 2025-11-19.

What is the specific scope of work for CLINs 0001-0004, and how does it align with the $25.87 million award?

The provided data indicates that ALL WORK REQUIRED BY CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003 AND 0004 is covered by the $25.87 million award. However, the specific details of these CLINs (Contract Line Item Numbers) are not elaborated in the provided data. Typically, CLINs break down a contract into specific deliverables, phases, or types of work. For a construction contract of this magnitude, these CLINs could represent different phases of construction (e.g., design, site preparation, foundation, structural, finishing), specific building components, or distinct service requirements. Without the full contract details, it's impossible to definitively state the scope. However, the total award amount suggests a significant construction project, likely involving the erection or substantial renovation of commercial or institutional buildings as per the NAICS code.

How does the per-day cost of this contract compare to similar construction projects?

The contract has a duration of 943 days and a total value of $25,867,211. This equates to a daily cost of approximately $27,431 ($25,867,211 / 943 days). Benchmarking this figure requires comparison with similar government or private sector construction projects of comparable scale, complexity, and geographic location. Factors such as labor costs, material prices, site conditions, and specific building types (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training facilities) in Louisiana would influence this comparison. Without access to a database of comparable construction project costs, it is difficult to definitively state whether $27,431 per day represents a high, low, or average cost. However, for large-scale construction, this daily rate suggests a substantial project requiring significant resources.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' contract type?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' (FOUCAES) contract type presents a nuanced risk profile. While it aims for broad competition, the initial exclusion of certain sources implies a pre-qualification or filtering process. This could limit the pool of potential bidders, potentially reducing the overall competitive pressure if the excluded sources were significant players. Risks include: 1) Reduced innovation: The excluded sources might have offered unique approaches or technologies. 2) Potential for perceived unfairness: If the exclusion criteria are unclear or contested, it could lead to protests or dissatisfaction among contractors. 3) Market concentration: If only a few large firms remain after exclusions, it might lead to less aggressive pricing. However, FOUCAES can also mitigate risks by ensuring that only capable and responsible sources are considered, potentially leading to higher quality outcomes and reducing the risk of contractor default or poor performance compared to unrestricted full and open competition if the exclusions were based on demonstrated capability gaps.

What is the track record of RED EAGLE JV in executing large-scale construction contracts for the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the specific track record of 'RED EAGLE JV' in executing large-scale construction contracts for the Department of Defense (DoD) is not provided in the data. As a joint venture (JV), its performance history might be a composite of its member companies' past performance, or it could be building its own track record. To assess their reliability, one would need to investigate: 1) Past performance evaluations of RED EAGLE JV on previous contracts, if any. 2) The individual track records of the companies forming the joint venture, particularly on similar DoD projects. 3) Any history of contract disputes, delays, or quality issues associated with the JV or its constituent members. Without this specific performance data, it's difficult to gauge their experience and reliability for a contract of this size and importance.

How does the $25.87 million award compare to the Department of the Army's typical annual spending on construction in Louisiana?

The provided data does not include information on the Department of the Army's typical annual spending on construction specifically within Louisiana. To make such a comparison, one would need access to historical Army contracting data for that geographic region, categorized by construction services. Factors influencing annual spending include military base needs, infrastructure upgrades, new facility construction, and overall budget allocations. A single $25.87 million contract could represent a significant portion of annual spending if the Army's construction needs in Louisiana are typically met through smaller, more frequent contracts, or it could be just one of many large projects if the Army maintains a substantial presence and ongoing construction program in the state. Without comparative historical data, the context of this award relative to overall spending patterns remains unclear.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type for project risk and cost management?

A Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type, like the one awarded to RED EAGLE JV, places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the specified scope of work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of unforeseen difficulties or increased costs in labor or materials. For the government, this offers significant cost certainty and predictability, making budgeting easier. The main implication for risk management is that the government is largely protected from cost increases. However, the contractor may seek to mitigate their own risk by building in higher profit margins or contingency into their initial bid, potentially leading to a higher base price than other contract types. Additionally, an FFP contract can sometimes disincentivize scope changes or enhancements, as any deviation from the original scope typically requires a formal contract modification and price adjustment, which contractors may resist.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9126G22R0006

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 29627 E STATE HIGHWAY 51, COWETA, OK, 74429

Business Categories: American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,867,211

Exercised Options: $25,867,211

Current Obligation: $25,867,211

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 10

Total Subaward Amount: $15,895,362

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline