DoD's $32.5M Forward Operating Site Construction Contract Awarded to FRAMACO-EPIK-METIS JV

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,457,388 ($32.5M)

Contractor: Framaco- Epik- Metis F E M, JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-31

End Date: 2013-12-05

Contract Duration: 2,380 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK FORWARD OPERATING SITE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.5 million to FRAMACO- EPIK- METIS F E M, JV for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK FORWARD OPERATING SITE Key points: 1. Contract awarded for design and construction of a forward operating site. 2. The contract utilized full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The award was a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, indicating cost certainty. 4. The contract duration was 2380 days, spanning over six years. 5. The contractor is a joint venture, FRAMACO- EPIK- METIS F E M, JV. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 238990, covering specialty trade contractors. 7. No small business set-aside was indicated for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $32.5 million for the design and construction of a forward operating site appears to be within a reasonable range for such a project, though specific benchmarks are difficult to ascertain without detailed project scope and location data. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost predictability for the government. However, the extended duration of over six years could introduce risks related to cost escalation if not managed meticulously, despite the fixed-price nature.

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 bids. The presence of 16 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this significant construction project. A competitive process like this generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive price for taxpayers, as multiple firms vied to win the contract. This process helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently by selecting the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel who will utilize the new forward operating site. The contract delivers essential design and construction services for critical military infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the forward operating base, enhancing operational capabilities. The project likely involved a significant number of construction workers and specialty trades, contributing to employment in the sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (2380 days) could lead to unforeseen cost pressures or scope creep if not managed tightly, despite the firm fixed-price.
The joint venture structure, while common, can sometimes introduce complexities in management and accountability.
Lack of specific details on the 'design and construction work' makes it hard to assess the complexity and associated risks.
The contractor's specific track record on similar large-scale military construction projects is not detailed here, posing a potential risk.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty and limits the government's exposure to cost overruns.
Full and open competition with 16 bidders suggests a robust market response and competitive pricing.
The award to a joint venture might leverage specialized expertise from multiple companies.
The contract addresses a clear need for military infrastructure, supporting operational readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the specialty trade contractors sector, specifically focusing on construction and design for military infrastructure. The market for defense construction is substantial, driven by the need for secure and functional operating bases globally. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific location, size, and technical requirements of the forward operating site, but projects of this scale typically represent significant investments in national security infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, with the primary contract being awarded to a joint venture of larger entities. Future opportunities for small businesses would depend on subcontracting plans developed by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and specific oversight activities may not be publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
Foreign Military Sales construction support
Department of Defense Facilities Engineering

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or performance degradation.
Joint venture structure requires careful management of inter-partner responsibilities.
Lack of detailed project scope in summary data hinders granular risk assessment.
Contractor's specific past performance on similar projects not detailed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.5 million to FRAMACO- EPIK- METIS F E M, JV. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK FORWARD OPERATING SITE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FRAMACO- EPIK- METIS F E M, JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-31. End: 2013-12-05.

What is the specific nature of the 'design and construction work' for the forward operating site, and what are the key performance requirements?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK FORWARD OPERATING SITE' under NAICS code 238990 (All Other Specialty Trade Contractors). While the specific details of the work are not elaborated in the summary data, typical requirements for such a site would include architectural design, engineering, site preparation, construction of buildings (barracks, command centers, storage facilities), utilities infrastructure (power, water, waste management), security features (fencing, access control), and potentially roads and landing zones. Key performance requirements would likely focus on adherence to military construction standards, security protocols, environmental regulations, timely completion, and quality of workmanship. The firm fixed-price nature suggests that the scope and requirements were well-defined at the time of award to allow for such pricing.

How does the $32.5 million contract value compare to similar forward operating site construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking the $32.5 million value requires comparing it to similar projects, considering factors like geographic location, scale, complexity, and specific security requirements. Forward Operating Sites (FOS) can vary significantly in cost. Smaller, less complex sites might cost in the low millions, while larger, more robust facilities in high-threat environments could easily exceed tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Without specific details on the scope, size, and location of this particular FOS, a precise comparison is challenging. However, $32.5 million appears to be a moderate investment for a dedicated FOS, suggesting it might be a medium-sized facility or one with standard requirements rather than an exceptionally large or highly fortified installation.

What is the track record of the joint venture partners (FRAMACO, EPIK, METIS) on similar large-scale government construction contracts?

Assessing the track record of the joint venture requires examining the past performance of its individual partners: FRAMACO, EPIK, and METIS. Information on their specific experience with large-scale Department of Defense construction, particularly forward operating sites or similar infrastructure projects, would be crucial. Government contract databases and past performance reviews would typically provide insights into their ability to manage complex projects, adhere to schedules and budgets, and meet quality standards. The formation of a joint venture often aims to combine complementary strengths and past experiences to successfully execute a large contract. A thorough review would look for evidence of successful project completion, client satisfaction, and any history of performance issues or disputes on comparable projects.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type and the long duration, what are the primary risks associated with this award for the government?

The primary risks for the government with this firm fixed-price contract, despite its cost certainty, stem from the extended duration of 2380 days (over six years). While the price is fixed, there's a risk that the initial scope definition might not perfectly capture all eventualities over such a long period. This could lead to change orders, although they should be minimal under a well-defined FFP contract. Another risk is contractor performance; if the joint venture struggles with execution, quality control, or project management over the years, the government might face delays or require significant oversight to ensure the final product meets standards. Ensuring the long-term viability and commitment of the joint venture partners throughout the project lifecycle is also a consideration.

What are the implications of awarding this contract to a joint venture versus a single prime contractor?

Awarding the contract to a joint venture (FRAMACO- EPIK- METIS F E M, JV) implies that the partners have pooled their resources, expertise, and potentially bonding capacity to undertake this project. This can be advantageous as it allows for the combination of specialized skills that a single entity might not possess. It can also increase the capacity to handle large, complex projects. For the government, the implications include managing relationships with multiple entities within the JV structure. Accountability might be distributed, requiring clear agreements within the JV on responsibilities. However, it also potentially spreads risk across the partners. The government's oversight might need to ensure clear lines of communication and responsibility are established and maintained throughout the contract's life.

How does the NAICS code 238990 (All Other Specialty Trade Contractors) inform our understanding of the services provided under this contract?

The NAICS code 238990 signifies that the primary business activities of the contractor fall under specialty trade contracting, excluding specific categories like plumbing, electrical, or masonry. This broad classification suggests that the contract likely encompasses a diverse range of specialized construction and installation services required for a forward operating site. This could include site preparation, foundation work, structural erection, installation of specialized equipment, finishing work, and potentially integration of various building systems. It implies that the joint venture partners collectively possess or will subcontract for the necessary expertise across multiple trades to complete the project, rather than focusing on a single, narrow specialty.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Specialty Trade Contractors › All Other Specialty Trade Contractors

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: W912GB07R0002

Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 800 WESTCHESTER, STE S-430, PORT CHESTER, NY, 10573

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,389,400

Exercised Options: $32,457,388

Current Obligation: $32,457,388

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline