Department of the Army awards $50.3M construction contract to Structsure Projects Inc. for facility upgrades

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $50,351,845 ($50.4M)

Contractor: Structsure Projects Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-05-08

End Date: 2029-08-25

Contract Duration: 1,570 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE REPLACE BAS & VAVS

Place of Performance

Location: BREMERTON, KITSAP County, WASHINGTON, 98310

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $50.4 million to STRUCTSURE PROJECTS INC for work described as: BASE REPLACE BAS & VAVS Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in infrastructure maintenance and modernization. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Contract duration of over four years indicates a substantial project scope. 5. Geographic focus on Washington state highlights regional infrastructure development. 6. The award is for construction services, a critical sector for government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $50.3 million for construction services appears reasonable given the project duration of over four years and the scope implied by facility upgrades. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects awarded by the Department of the Army or other federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the contractor's bid was competitive.

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. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this substantial construction project. While two bidders is better than a sole-source award, a higher number of bids would typically lead to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with two bidders, provides a baseline for fair pricing and prevents potential overpayment associated with limited competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the upgraded facilities. The contract will deliver essential construction and renovation services to improve existing infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Washington state, supporting local economic activity and employment. The project will likely create or sustain jobs within the construction sector in the region.

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 schedule delays impacting the availability of upgraded facilities.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets the Army's stringent standards requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition provides a basis for fair pricing.
Long-term contract duration allows for phased execution and potential learning curve efficiencies.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a vital component of federal spending, encompassing a wide range of projects from building maintenance to new facility development. This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction category. Federal spending in this sector is often driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure, modernize facilities, and support military readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar military construction projects or the average contract value for facility upgrades within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting requirements for small businesses mandated by this specific award. The primary impact on the small business ecosystem would be indirect, through potential opportunities with the prime contractor, Structsure Projects Inc., if they choose to subcontract portions of the work. However, without specific set-aside provisions, the direct benefit to small businesses from this particular contract is limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, allowing for scrutiny of the contract details and performance. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM)
Department of Defense Construction Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Potential for cost escalation if unforeseen issues arise in construction
Need for robust quality assurance oversight

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $50.4 million to STRUCTSURE PROJECTS INC. BASE REPLACE BAS & VAVS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STRUCTSURE PROJECTS 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 $50.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-05-08. End: 2029-08-25.

What is the historical track record of Structsure Projects Inc. with the Department of the Army and other federal agencies?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to assess Structsure Projects Inc.'s historical performance. This would involve examining past contract awards, their values, the agencies involved, and any reported performance ratings or disputes. Understanding their experience with similar types of construction projects, particularly those for military installations, would provide insight into their capability and reliability. A track record of successful project completion, on time and within budget, would be a positive indicator, while a history of contract terminations, disputes, or poor performance would raise concerns about their suitability for this current award.

How does the awarded amount of $50.3 million compare to the estimated cost or budget for this project?

The provided data does not include the government's estimated cost or budget for this project, making a direct comparison impossible. However, the fact that the contract was awarded under full and open competition with two bids suggests that the awarded price is likely within a range considered acceptable by the government. To perform a thorough value assessment, one would need access to the government's independent government cost estimate (IGCE) or pre-negotiation objectives. This would allow analysts to determine if the awarded price represents a fair and reasonable cost for the services to be rendered, considering the scope, duration, and market conditions.

What are the specific risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a multi-year construction project?

Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts place the majority of the cost risk on the contractor. For a multi-year construction project, key risks include the contractor underestimating material costs, labor expenses, or unforeseen site conditions. If these risks materialize, the contractor may incur losses or attempt to cut corners on quality to maintain profitability. Conversely, the government benefits from cost certainty. However, the government must ensure the initial price is fair and reasonable, as the contractor has less incentive to control costs once the price is set. Diligent government oversight is crucial to ensure quality and adherence to specifications, mitigating the risk of substandard work.

What is the typical duration and cost range for similar facility upgrade contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The typical duration and cost range for similar facility upgrade contracts awarded by the Department of the Army can vary significantly based on the scope, complexity, and location of the project. However, a contract valued at $50.3 million with a duration of over four years (1570 days) suggests a substantial undertaking, likely involving significant renovations or upgrades to multiple facilities or a large single structure. Benchmarking against historical data for Army construction projects of comparable size and type would reveal whether this award falls within the expected parameters. Factors like prevailing wage rates, material costs in the specific region (Washington state), and the specific nature of the upgrades (e.g., structural, MEP, IT infrastructure) heavily influence these ranges.

What are the implications of having only two bidders for a contract of this magnitude?

Having only two bidders for a contract of this magnitude ($50.3 million) suggests a moderate level of competition. While this is preferable to a sole-source award, it may not yield the most competitive pricing possible. A higher number of bidders typically drives prices down through increased market pressure. The government may have limited leverage in price negotiations if only two firms are willing to bid. It is important to understand why only two bids were received; potential reasons include high barriers to entry for this type of work, specific technical requirements that limited the bidder pool, or insufficient outreach to potential contractors. This could indicate a less robust market for these services or potential issues with the solicitation process.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 903 E 104TH ST, KANSAS CITY, MO, 64131

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,351,845

Exercised Options: $50,351,845

Current Obligation: $50,351,845

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9127S23D6024

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline