DoD's $51.9M construction contract awarded to FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC for USAFA facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $51,934,414 ($51.9M)

Contractor: Federal Contracting Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-08-21

End Date: 2025-03-10

Contract Duration: 1,662 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CNS CYBERWORX, USAFA

Place of Performance

Location: USAF ACADEMY, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80840

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $51.9 million to FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC for work described as: CNS CYBERWORX, USAFA Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through competitive bidding and fixed-price structure. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a robust market for construction services. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and fixed-price nature. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Army's facility management. 5. Sector positioning is in commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government. Benchmarking against similar construction projects would be necessary for a definitive value assessment, but the competitive award suggests a reasonable price was achieved. The total value of $51.9 million over approximately 5.5 years indicates a significant investment in facility upgrades or construction.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, two offers indicate that the opportunity was attractive enough to elicit interest from multiple firms.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and service quality.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of the Army by providing necessary facility construction or upgrades. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction. Geographic impact is centered around USAFA (United States Air Force Academy) in Colorado. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction labor and related trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in construction, despite fixed-price.
Dependence on contractor performance for timely and quality completion.
Long contract duration (over 5 years) increases exposure to market fluctuations.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract limits the government's exposure to cost increases.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Award to a single contractor streamlines management and accountability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the federal contracting market. Spending in this area often supports infrastructure development, facility maintenance, and upgrades across various government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and scale of construction, but federal construction spending is consistently in the billions annually.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor is not identified as a small business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business participation is mandated or encouraged through subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though specific project details and ongoing performance metrics may not be publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Facilities
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or performance degradation.
Fixed-price contract could incentivize cost-cutting at the expense of quality if not closely monitored.
Limited competition (2 bidders) might indicate potential barriers to entry or a niche market.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $51.9 million to FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC. CNS CYBERWORX, USAFA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FEDERAL CONTRACTING 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 $51.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-08-21. End: 2025-03-10.

What is the track record of FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC with the Department of Defense?

FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC has a history of receiving contracts from the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance on similar construction projects, including adherence to schedule, budget, and quality standards, would provide insight into their reliability. Reviewing past contract awards and terminations, as well as any reported disputes or performance issues, is crucial for assessing their track record. Specific data on their past performance ratings and any corrective actions taken would further inform this assessment. Without access to detailed performance history, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability on this specific $51.9 million contract.

How does the awarded price compare to similar construction projects in Colorado?

Benchmarking the $51.9 million contract value against similar commercial and institutional building construction projects in Colorado requires detailed project specifications, scope of work, and location data. Factors such as square footage, type of construction (e.g., new build, renovation), materials used, and prevailing labor costs in the specific region significantly influence pricing. A direct comparison would necessitate access to a database of comparable federal and private sector construction projects in Colorado, allowing for adjustments based on project complexity and scale. Given the firm fixed-price nature, the government likely sought competitive bids to ensure a reasonable price point relative to the market.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price construction contract of this duration?

The primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price construction contract of this duration (over 5 years) include potential cost overruns for the contractor if material prices or labor costs escalate unexpectedly, which could lead to contractor financial distress or pressure to cut corners on quality. For the government, the risk lies in the contractor's ability to maintain quality and schedule over an extended period, and the potential for disputes if unforeseen site conditions or design changes arise. The fixed-price nature, while offering budget certainty, can disincentivize the contractor from implementing cost-saving innovations if they perceive it as reducing their profit margin. Contractor performance risk is also heightened due to the long timeline.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in construction contracts?

Full and open competition is generally considered a highly effective mechanism for ensuring value for taxpayer money in construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions. This process increases the likelihood that the government will receive high-quality services at a fair and reasonable price. The presence of multiple bidders allows for price discovery and provides a basis for evaluating the competitiveness of the offers received. While effective, the process requires robust solicitation documents and thorough evaluation criteria to prevent bid protests and ensure the selection of the most capable contractor.

What is the historical spending trend for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army are substantial, reflecting the ongoing need to maintain, upgrade, and expand military facilities. This spending fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, infrastructure modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. Over the past decade, the Army has consistently invested billions annually in construction projects, ranging from barracks and training facilities to administrative buildings and specialized infrastructure. Factors such as geopolitical events, base closures/realignments, and national defense priorities influence the specific allocation of funds within this category. This $51.9 million contract represents a portion of that broader investment.

Are there specific performance metrics or KPIs tied to this contract for USAFA facilities?

While the provided data does not detail specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance metrics for this contract, it is standard practice for federal construction contracts, especially those of this magnitude and duration, to include detailed performance requirements. These typically cover aspects such as adherence to project schedules, quality of workmanship, compliance with safety regulations, and timely completion of milestones. The contracting officer's representative (COR) or a designated quality assurance specialist would monitor these metrics throughout the contract period. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractually defined remedies, including payment withholds or termination.

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: W9128F20R0052

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7025 CAMPUS DR, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 80920

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,262,115

Exercised Options: $51,934,414

Current Obligation: $51,934,414

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline