DoD's $26.75M construction contract for Fort Jackson awarded to Roy Anderson Corp

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,751,198 ($26.8M)

Contractor: ROY Anderson Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-03-29

End Date: 2016-09-20

Contract Duration: 1,636 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ALL WORK UNLESS SEPARATELY LISTED

Place of Performance

Location: FORT SILL, COMANCHE County, OKLAHOMA, 73503

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.8 million to ROY ANDERSON CORP for work described as: ALL WORK UNLESS SEPARATELY LISTED Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but limits flexibility. 4. Contract duration of over 4 years indicates a substantial project scope. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting focus on ground forces infrastructure. 6. The contract was awarded in Oklahoma, indicating a specific geographic focus for the construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $26.75 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and duration. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the majority of the cost risk, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively. However, without specific details on the scope of work and the final deliverables, a precise value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 10 bids received, this suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for the project. A competitive bidding process generally leads to better price discovery and can result in more favorable terms for the government. The number of bidders implies that the market had sufficient capacity and interest to engage with this opportunity.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more cost-effective outcome for taxpayers, as multiple firms vied to offer their best pricing and terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and the personnel stationed at Fort Jackson, who will utilize the new or improved facilities. The contract delivers commercial and institutional building construction services, likely involving the erection or renovation of buildings for operational or living purposes. The geographic impact is concentrated in Oklahoma, where the construction work was performed. The project likely created temporary employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the local area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
Risk of delays in project completion impacting operational readiness if the contractor faces resource or logistical issues.
Quality control concerns inherent in large-scale construction projects require diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests a competitive market and potentially better pricing.
The contract was awarded to Roy Anderson Corp, a known entity in construction, implying some level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as government facilities, educational institutions, healthcare centers, and commercial properties. The Department of Defense is a significant client for construction services, investing heavily in maintaining and expanding its infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar military construction projects across different branches and geographic locations.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside criterion (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary competition was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. However, the prime contractor, Roy Anderson Corp, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the work, which is common in large construction projects. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent of subcontracting opportunities offered and the ability of local small businesses to compete for those subcontracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and payment milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract performance or closeout.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Department of Defense Facilities Management
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to fixed-price nature
Risk of quality compromises if contractor faces financial pressure
Schedule adherence challenges in large construction projects

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.8 million to ROY ANDERSON CORP. ALL WORK UNLESS SEPARATELY LISTED

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROY ANDERSON 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 $26.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-03-29. End: 2016-09-20.

What is the track record of Roy Anderson Corp. with Department of Defense contracts?

Roy Anderson Corp. has a history of performing construction work for the Department of Defense. While this specific contract was awarded in 2012 and completed in 2016, their portfolio likely includes other projects for various military branches. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any contract disputes, or awards for similar projects would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contractor performance databases can offer insights into their historical success rates and adherence to contract terms on previous government engagements.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar construction projects at military installations?

To benchmark the $26.75 million award, one would need to compare it against similar construction projects at military installations, considering factors like project scope (e.g., barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings), square footage, location, and the year of award. For instance, if this contract was for a large barracks complex, its cost might be comparable to other barracks projects. Conversely, if it was for a smaller administrative building, it might appear high. Analyzing cost per square foot for comparable projects would be a key metric. Without specific details on the type of building and its features, a precise comparison is difficult, but the full and open competition suggests a market-driven price.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for large-scale construction?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for large-scale construction is the potential for the contractor to incur significant losses if costs exceed estimates, or for the government to potentially overpay if the initial price was set too high due to limited competition or inaccurate cost projections. For the government, the risk lies in the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability, necessitating robust oversight. Conversely, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, or labor issues. The government's main benefit is cost certainty, but this comes with the risk of the contractor being less willing to accommodate changes.

How effective was the competition in ensuring value for money on this contract?

The fact that this contract was awarded under full and open competition with 10 bids suggests a strong competitive environment. This level of competition generally leads to better price discovery and encourages bidders to offer their most competitive pricing and terms to win the contract. Therefore, it is likely that the competition contributed positively to ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. However, the ultimate effectiveness also depends on the government's ability to accurately define the scope of work and evaluate the bids received, ensuring that the lowest price also represents the best overall value considering technical factors and past performance.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for similar construction contracts by the Department of the Army show a consistent and substantial investment in infrastructure. The Army regularly procures construction services for barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings, and other essential structures across numerous installations. Spending in this category, often categorized under Military Construction (MILCON) or general facility maintenance and repair, fluctuates based on military readiness needs, congressional appropriations, and modernization initiatives. Analyzing multi-year spending data for construction contracts of similar size and scope would reveal patterns related to specific types of construction and geographic regions of focus.

What oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure the successful completion of this construction project?

Oversight for this contract would have involved a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or a similar designated government official responsible for monitoring the contractor's performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and verifying the quality of work. Regular progress meetings, site inspections, and review of project documentation (e.g., daily logs, progress reports, payment requests) are standard oversight mechanisms. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract also implies that the government's primary oversight focus would be on ensuring the project meets the specified requirements and quality standards within the agreed-upon price and schedule.

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: W912BV12R0004

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tutor Perini Corporation (UEI: 006954432)

Address: 11400 REICHOLD RD, GULFPORT, MS, 39503

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,751,198

Exercised Options: $26,751,198

Current Obligation: $26,751,198

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline