DoD's $25M F-35 STOVL Landing Deck Construction Contract Awarded to R. C. Construction Co., Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,083,420 ($25.1M)

Contractor: R. C. Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-12

End Date: 2013-05-07

Contract Duration: 1,091 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AWARD CONTRACT BASE BID + OPTIONS 1,2,4,5,7&8 - F-35 STOVL SIMULATED CARRIER PRACTICE LANDING DECK, EGLIN - C0120-C/C STOVL SIMULATED [157044]

Place of Performance

Location: EGLIN AFB, OKALOOSA County, FLORIDA, 32542

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.1 million to R. C. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: AWARD CONTRACT BASE BID + OPTIONS 1,2,4,5,7&8 - F-35 STOVL SIMULATED CARRIER PRACTICE LANDING DECK, EGLIN - C0120-C/C STOVL SIMULATED [157044] Key points: 1. Contract awarded for specialized F-35 STOVL simulated landing deck construction. 2. Competition involved 11 bidders, indicating a moderately competitive landscape. 3. Contract type is a Definitive Contract with a Firm Fixed Price, suggesting cost certainty. 4. Project duration is approximately 3 years, aligning with typical construction timelines. 5. Geographic focus on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, for critical training infrastructure. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized for this procurement. 7. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the specialized nature of the facility.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $25 million for a simulated landing deck appears within a reasonable range for specialized military construction projects. Benchmarking against similar, highly specific training facilities is challenging due to limited public data. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests the government sought to control costs upfront. The number of bidders (11) indicates some level of market interest, but without knowing the scope and complexity of other bids, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is a less common competition type. This suggests that while multiple sources were considered, there might have been specific criteria or exclusions that limited the pool of potential bidders. With 11 bidders, the competition level was moderate, likely leading to some price discovery. However, the 'exclusion of sources' aspect warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the final price and overall competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate number of bidders suggests that taxpayers likely received a competitive price, but the exclusion of certain sources could have potentially limited the most aggressive pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots training on the F-35 STOVL variant. The contract delivers essential infrastructure for realistic flight simulation and carrier practice landings. The geographic impact is localized to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, a key training hub. The project supports the defense industrial base and construction workforce in the Florida region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type could indicate potential limitations on broader market participation.
Lack of specific performance metrics or outcome-based evaluations in the provided data.
The firm fixed-price contract, while offering cost certainty, may not incentivize cost efficiencies beyond the initial bid.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a contractor with experience in construction, likely capable of executing the project.
Firm fixed-price contract provides budget predictability for the government.
The project addresses a critical training need for advanced military aircraft.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for specialized military training facilities is niche, often characterized by high barriers to entry due to security, technical requirements, and specific government needs. Spending in this sub-sector is driven by defense modernization programs and the need for advanced training infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without detailed project specifications and location-specific construction cost indices.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This means the primary contract value did not directly flow to small businesses through a set-aside mechanism. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely indirect, potentially through opportunities with the prime contractor if they choose to subcontract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and inspection processes, likely involving the relevant Air Force or Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified facility within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited by the nature of defense procurements, but contract award details are generally available through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

F-35 Lightning II Program
Naval Aviation Training Facilities
Military Construction Projects
Air Force Base Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Competition type 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' requires scrutiny.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in award data.
Potential for cost overruns if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
Dependence on contractor's specialized expertise and execution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.1 million to R. C. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. AWARD CONTRACT BASE BID + OPTIONS 1,2,4,5,7&8 - F-35 STOVL SIMULATED CARRIER PRACTICE LANDING DECK, EGLIN - C0120-C/C STOVL SIMULATED [157044]

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is R. C. CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 $25.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-12. End: 2013-05-07.

What is the track record of R. C. Construction Co., Inc. with Department of Defense contracts?

R. C. Construction Co., Inc. has a history of performing construction services for the Department of Defense. While specific details on past performance quality and scope are not provided in this summary, their selection for this Definitive Contract suggests they met the necessary qualifications and experience requirements set forth by the Army for this specialized project. Further analysis would involve reviewing their contract history for similar projects, any past performance evaluations, and any instances of disputes or contract modifications to fully assess their track record.

How does the $25 million award compare to similar simulated landing deck construction projects?

Direct comparisons for highly specialized simulated landing decks are difficult due to the unique nature of each project and varying construction costs by location and specific technical requirements. However, $25 million is a significant investment, reflecting the complexity and advanced technology likely involved in an F-35 STOVL simulated carrier landing facility. Projects of this nature often involve specialized materials, precise engineering, and integration with simulation systems. Without access to detailed project scopes and cost breakdowns for comparable facilities, a precise benchmark is not feasible, but the award appears consistent with the specialized requirements of advanced military aviation infrastructure.

What are the primary risks associated with this construction contract?

Key risks include potential construction delays due to unforeseen site conditions, weather, or supply chain disruptions, which could impact project timelines. Cost overruns are a risk, even with a firm fixed-price contract, if scope creep occurs or if initial estimates did not fully account for all complexities. Technical risks related to the integration of specialized simulation equipment or ensuring the deck meets stringent F-35 STOVL operational requirements are also present. Furthermore, contractor performance and adherence to safety and quality standards are ongoing risks that require diligent oversight.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' in ensuring value for taxpayers?

This competition type aims to balance broad market access with specific requirements. By excluding certain sources, the government might be targeting contractors with very specific capabilities or clearances. While it allows for multiple bidders (11 in this case), the exclusion could limit the pool of potential competitors, potentially reducing the downward pressure on prices compared to unrestricted full and open competition. The effectiveness for taxpayers hinges on whether the excluded sources were truly unnecessary or if their exclusion prevented more competitive bids. A thorough justification for the exclusion is critical for assessing value.

What is the historical spending trend for similar military construction projects at Eglin AFB?

Historical spending data for military construction projects at Eglin Air Force Base would reveal trends in investment in training infrastructure, facility upgrades, and specialized construction. Analyzing past contracts for similar types of facilities (e.g., aircraft maintenance hangars, training simulators, runway improvements) would provide context for the $25 million award. This analysis could indicate whether this contract represents a typical investment level, an increase, or a decrease in spending for such projects, helping to assess if current spending aligns with historical patterns or signifies a shift in priorities or budget allocation.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type on contractor performance and cost?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor. This incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and adhere strictly to the contract's scope of work to maximize profit. For the government, it provides cost certainty, as the price is set upfront. However, it can also lead to less flexibility if changes are needed, potentially requiring contract modifications. The contractor may also build in a higher contingency into their bid to account for potential risks, which could result in a higher initial price compared to other contract types like cost-plus.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9127810R0033

Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 311 W PARK AVE, GREENWOOD, MS, 38930

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,083,420

Exercised Options: $25,083,420

Current Obligation: $25,083,420

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline