DoD's $36.8M Fort Belvoir design-build contract awarded to Suffolk Construction shows fair value but limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,843,374 ($36.8M)

Contractor: Suffolk Construction Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-13

End Date: 2011-09-13

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $100.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: USALSA, PHASE II, BRAC 132 (DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES) FOR FORT BELVOIR, VA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BELVOIR, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22060

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $36.8 million to SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: USALSA, PHASE II, BRAC 132 (DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES) FOR FORT BELVOIR, VA Key points: 1. The contract's firm-fixed-price structure suggests a predictable cost outcome. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, it aimed for broad market participation. 3. The contract duration of one year is relatively short for a design-build project. 4. The project's focus on building construction aligns with standard defense infrastructure needs. 5. The awarded amount represents a significant investment in base infrastructure modernization.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $36.8 million for design-build services at Fort Belvoir appears reasonable given the scope of commercial and institutional building construction. Benchmarking against similar projects is challenging without more detailed project specifications, but the firm-fixed-price nature suggests the government secured a defined cost. The absence of extensive modifications or change orders, if applicable, would further indicate good value realization.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The fact that five bids were received suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this type of defense construction project. This broad competition is generally expected to drive more competitive pricing and better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers by encouraging multiple contractors to offer their best terms.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families at Fort Belvoir will benefit from improved facilities. The project delivers essential design-build services for institutional building construction. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The construction workforce in the Northern Virginia region may see employment opportunities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise during design or construction.
Risk of schedule delays if design complexities are underestimated or permitting issues occur.
Dependence on contractor's ability to manage subcontractors effectively for quality control.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type limits the government's exposure to cost increases.
Award under full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs for a military installation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area often supports infrastructure development, modernization, and maintenance for government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar military or government building projects across different regions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely limited unless Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the full impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified design and construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
Department of Defense Facilities Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if design requirements are not rigidly defined.
Contractor performance risk related to quality and schedule adherence.
Dependence on timely government approvals during design and construction phases.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $36.8 million to SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. USALSA, PHASE II, BRAC 132 (DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES) FOR FORT BELVOIR, VA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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 $36.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-13. End: 2011-09-13.

What was the specific nature of the design-build services required for Fort Belvoir?

The contract data specifies 'USALSA, PHASE II, BRAC 132 (DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES) FOR FORT BELVOIR, VA'. This indicates the project was part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiative, specifically Phase II for USALSA (United States Army Legal Services Agency) at Fort Belvoir. Design-build services imply a single contract covering both the architectural/engineering design and the subsequent construction of the facility. The exact type of building (e.g., administrative, barracks, training) is not detailed but falls under 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction'.

How does the $36.8 million award compare to similar design-build projects for military installations?

Direct comparison of the $36.8 million award requires detailed project scope, size (square footage), complexity, and location. However, for context, major military construction projects can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. A firm-fixed-price contract for a single-year project of this nature suggests a defined scope, potentially a mid-sized facility or a specific component of a larger base upgrade. Without more granular data on comparable projects (e.g., cost per square foot, specific facility type), a precise benchmark is difficult, but the amount is within a typical range for significant facility upgrades.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price design-build contract?

The primary risks for a firm-fixed-price design-build contract, despite its cost certainty for the government, often lie in the contractor's ability to accurately estimate and manage the full scope. Potential risks include: 1) Inadequate design leading to costly changes during construction. 2) Unforeseen site conditions (e.g., environmental, geotechnical) not fully captured in the initial design or bid. 3) Contractor underbidding to win the contract, potentially leading to quality compromises or disputes later. 4) Schedule delays caused by design issues, permitting, or subcontractor performance, which can still incur costs for the government if not managed contractually. 5) The contractor absorbing losses if costs exceed the fixed price.

What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation imply for the government and taxpayers?

Full and open competition implies that the contract was solicited broadly, allowing any responsible contractor to submit a proposal. This is generally the preferred method for federal procurements as it maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering robust competition. For the government and taxpayers, this typically translates into: 1) Lower prices due to competitive pressure. 2) A wider range of innovative solutions offered by different contractors. 3) Increased transparency and fairness in the procurement process. 4) A higher likelihood of selecting the best value proposal based on both price and technical merit.

What is the significance of the contract being a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' with a short duration?

A definitive contract is a standard contract type that specifies exact quantities and prices for goods or services. In this case, it means the $36.8 million represents the total obligated amount for a clearly defined scope. The short duration of one year (September 2010 - September 2011) for a design-build project is somewhat unusual, as design and construction processes often extend beyond a single year, especially for complex facilities. This might suggest the contract covered a specific phase, a smaller facility, or perhaps the 'design-build' aspect was limited, with major construction potentially falling under subsequent contracts or phases. It could also indicate a rapid deployment requirement.

How does the NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) inform our understanding of this contract?

The NAICS code 236220 signifies that the primary activity under this contract is the construction of commercial and institutional buildings. This includes a wide range of structures such as office buildings, warehouses, factories, government buildings, schools, and hospitals. For this specific contract at Fort Belvoir, it implies the project involved erecting or renovating facilities intended for operational, administrative, or support purposes within the military installation, rather than housing or specialized infrastructure like roads or utilities.

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: W912DR10R0110

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3190 FAIRVIEW PARK DR STE 200, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,066,777

Exercised Options: $37,066,777

Current Obligation: $36,843,374

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 23

Total Subaward Amount: $22,527,549

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline