Clark Construction Group LLC awarded $48.3M contract for building construction by Department of the Army
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $48,273,481 ($48.3M)
Contractor: Clark Construction Group LLC
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2015-09-29
End Date: 2018-07-31
Contract Duration: 1,036 days
Daily Burn Rate: $46.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: BASE IGF::OT::IGF
Place of Performance
Location: FORT BELVOIR, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22060
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $48.3 million to CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC for work described as: BASE IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of commercial building construction. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of over 3 years indicates a significant project. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Project located in Virginia, a key area for federal construction. 6. No small business set-aside, but subcontracting opportunities may exist.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The $48.3 million award for commercial and institutional building construction is within the expected range for a project of this scale and duration. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor has assumed the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of price certainty for the government.
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 6 bidders participating, the competition level suggests a healthy market interest and provides a basis for price discovery. This broad competition is generally favorable for achieving competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
Public Impact
The Department of the Army is the primary beneficiary, receiving the constructed facility. The contract delivers essential building infrastructure, likely for military operations or support. The geographic impact is concentrated in Virginia, supporting local economic activity. The project likely created or sustained jobs in the construction sector within the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price.
- Schedule delays could impact the operational readiness of the facility.
- Quality control issues could lead to long-term maintenance problems.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract mitigates budget uncertainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a competitive pricing environment.
- Experienced contractor with a track record in large-scale construction projects.
- Long contract duration allows for thorough project execution and quality assurance.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or General Services Administration for similar types of buildings.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of small business subcontracting goals. This means that prime contract opportunities were not specifically targeted towards small businesses. However, Clark Construction Group LLC, as a large prime contractor, may engage small businesses for subcontracting work, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details might be limited for security reasons. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Department of Defense Facilities
- General Services Administration Buildings
- Federal Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
- Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
- Quality control issues could lead to long-term maintenance challenges.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, virginia, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-building, institutional-building, large-contract, over-3-years-duration
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $48.3 million to CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC. BASE IGF::OT::IGF
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $48.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2015-09-29. End: 2018-07-31.
What is Clark Construction Group LLC's track record with the Department of Defense?
Clark Construction Group LLC has a substantial history of working with the Department of Defense on various construction projects. Their portfolio includes a range of facilities, from barracks and training centers to administrative buildings and infrastructure upgrades. Analyzing their past performance on similar-sized contracts, including any history of disputes, cost overruns, or schedule delays, would provide further insight into their reliability and capability for executing this specific project. Their extensive experience suggests a strong understanding of federal contracting requirements and military construction standards.
How does the $48.3 million award compare to similar building construction contracts?
The $48.3 million award for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army is a significant sum, indicative of a large-scale project. To benchmark its value, one would compare it to other definitive contracts awarded for similar building types (e.g., administrative facilities, research labs, or support structures) by federal agencies over the past few years. Factors such as geographic location, specific construction requirements (e.g., LEED certification, specialized security features), and prevailing market conditions for labor and materials would influence these comparisons. Without access to a detailed breakdown of the construction scope, a precise value-for-money assessment relative to market rates is challenging, but the amount is consistent with major federal construction endeavors.
What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?
The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price contract, from the government's perspective, is that the contractor bears the burden of cost overruns. However, for the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating costs, which could lead to reduced profit margins or even losses if unforeseen issues arise. For this specific project, potential risks include unexpected site conditions (e.g., soil contamination, underground utilities), material price escalations beyond what was factored into the fixed price, labor shortages, or design changes requested by the government. Effective project management, clear communication, and robust contingency planning by both parties are crucial to mitigating these risks.
What is the expected effectiveness of the constructed facility?
The effectiveness of the constructed facility will be measured by its ability to meet the operational requirements of the Department of the Army for which it was intended. This includes providing adequate space, functionality, and durability for its intended purpose, whether that be administrative, logistical, or operational support. Factors contributing to effectiveness include adherence to design specifications, quality of construction, timely completion, and long-term maintainability. The firm fixed-price contract and full and open competition are intended to ensure that the facility is delivered at a competitive price and meets the required standards, thereby maximizing its effectiveness for the end-users.
How has federal spending on building construction evolved in recent years?
Federal spending on building construction has fluctuated over recent years, influenced by budget appropriations, infrastructure initiatives, and national security priorities. Agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and Department of Veterans Affairs are major contributors to this spending. Trends may include increased focus on sustainable building practices (e.g., LEED certification), modernization of aging facilities, and construction of specialized infrastructure for evolving defense or technological needs. Analyzing historical spending data for building construction contracts can reveal patterns in agency priorities, geographic distribution of projects, and the average contract values and durations.
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: W912DR15R0020
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Clark Construction LLC (UEI: 080206726)
Address: 7500 OLD GEORGETOWN RD, BETHESDA, MD, 20814
Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $48,893,481
Exercised Options: $48,273,481
Current Obligation: $48,273,481
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2015-09-29
Current End Date: 2018-07-31
Potential End Date: 2018-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-04-28
More Contracts from Clark Construction Group LLC
- ECB2 Construction Project Igf::ot::igf — $727.7M (Department of Defense)
- TAS::47 4543::TAS Recovery: Award of Arra Funds for Design/Build of US Coast Guard Headquarters Building, ST Elizabeths West Campus, Wash., DC — $652.2M (General Services Administration)
- Design-Build Construction of the Veterans Affairs Health Care Center, EL Paso, TX — $617.1M (Department of Defense)
- IRA: Provide Labor, Materials, Supervision, and Equipment to Construct the NEW Cisa HQ Building. Services Include, BUT ARE NOT Limited: Civil and Site Work Consisting of Heavy Earth Work, Etc.excavation, Stabilization of Existing Slope, Foundations — $569.7M (General Services Administration)
- P-114, SET 2, Medical Center Addition/Alteration (mcaa), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (wrnmmc), Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Bethesda, MD — $482.3M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)