DoD's $57M construction contract awarded to Caddell Construction for building projects in North Carolina

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $57,047,074 ($57.0M)

Contractor: Caddell Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-06-16

End Date: 2008-12-01

Contract Duration: 899 days

Daily Burn Rate: $63.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28310

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $57.0 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for large-scale construction projects. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 899 days indicates a significant project scope. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. No small business set-aside noted, potentially limiting small business participation. 6. Geographic focus on North Carolina.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $57 million for commercial and institutional building construction is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale DoD construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm fixed-price structure generally indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be favorable for the government if managed effectively. The number of bids (3) suggests some level of competition, but a higher number would typically lead to better price discovery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. Three bids were received, indicating a moderate level of competition for this project. While three bidders are better than one or two, a higher number of bids often correlates with more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to vie for the contract, potentially driving down costs and improving the quality of proposals.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will gain new or improved facilities. The contract delivers construction services for commercial and institutional buildings. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina. The project will likely create construction jobs and stimulate local economic activity in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited number of bidders (3) may have reduced competitive pressure.
Fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to change order disputes if scope is not clearly defined.
Construction projects inherently carry risks related to site conditions, material availability, and labor.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition maximizes the pool of potential bidders.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Contract duration of nearly two years suggests a well-defined, albeit long-term, project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in construction, particularly for defense infrastructure, is substantial. This contract represents a portion of the DoD's investment in maintaining and expanding its facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military construction projects awarded by the Army or other branches.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the 'sb' field is false. This suggests that large businesses were the primary focus or were the only ones to submit competitive bids. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in fulfilling parts of this large contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not well-defined.
Risk of project delays due to contractor performance or unforeseen issues.
Limited competition (3 bidders) may have resulted in suboptimal pricing.
Lack of explicit small business set-aside or subcontracting goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $57.0 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 $57.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-16. End: 2008-12-01.

What is Caddell Construction Co., Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense?

Caddell Construction Co., Inc. has a significant history of working with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies on large-scale construction projects. Their portfolio often includes military barracks, training facilities, and infrastructure upgrades. A review of federal procurement data would reveal the number and value of previous contracts awarded to Caddell by the DoD, as well as their performance ratings on those contracts. This specific contract, valued at $57 million and awarded in 2006, indicates a sustained relationship and a level of trust from the agency based on past performance. Examining past performance metrics, such as timeliness, adherence to budget, and quality of work, is crucial for assessing the reliability of the contractor for this project.

How does the $57 million contract value compare to similar DoD construction projects?

The $57 million value for this contract is substantial and falls within the range of large-scale military construction projects. To benchmark its value effectively, one would need to compare it against similar projects awarded by the Department of the Army or other DoD branches around the same period (2006-2008). Factors such as project scope (e.g., type of building, square footage, complexity), location, and prevailing construction costs at the time are critical for a fair comparison. Without access to a detailed database of comparable projects with specific cost breakdowns, it's challenging to definitively state if $57 million represents excellent, fair, or questionable value. However, given the firm fixed-price nature and full and open competition, the agency likely sought competitive bids to ensure reasonable pricing for the scope of work.

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

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, while generally favorable to the government, lie in potential scope creep and contractor performance. If the project requirements are not meticulously defined upfront, the contractor may face unforeseen challenges, leading to requests for change orders, which can increase the total cost. The contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, but if they encounter significant difficulties or disputes, it could lead to project delays or even contractor default, impacting the government's timeline. Additionally, the quality of work must be rigorously monitored to ensure it meets specifications, as the contractor's incentive might be to cut corners if not properly overseen. The duration of 899 days also introduces risks related to material price fluctuations and labor availability over an extended period.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts?

Full and open competition is widely considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. This process allows the government to receive a wider range of proposals, enabling selection based on the best combination of price, technical approach, and past performance. The requirement for multiple bids helps prevent price gouging and ensures that the contract is awarded to the most capable and cost-effective provider. While it requires more administrative effort to manage the solicitation and evaluation process, the potential savings and improved outcomes typically outweigh these costs for significant federal investments.

What are the implications of the contract duration (899 days) on project management and cost?

A contract duration of 899 days, approximately 2.5 years, signifies a large-scale and potentially complex construction project. This extended timeline requires robust project management from both the government and the contractor to ensure milestones are met and the project stays on track. From a cost perspective, a longer duration can expose the project to greater risks of material price escalation and labor cost increases, especially under a fixed-price contract if not adequately accounted for in the initial pricing. However, it also allows for more detailed planning, phased construction, and potentially less rushed execution, which can sometimes lead to higher quality outcomes. The government must maintain consistent oversight throughout this period to manage risks and ensure accountability.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in North Carolina?

Awarding a $57 million construction contract in North Carolina has several implications. Firstly, it signifies a federal investment in the state's infrastructure and economy, likely creating numerous jobs for local construction workers, suppliers, and related service providers. Secondly, it indicates the Department of Defense's operational or strategic presence in the region, requiring facilities to support its mission. The specific location within North Carolina would determine the local economic impact and the types of construction firms that could realistically bid, potentially favoring regional contractors. This contract also contributes to the overall construction market activity within the state during the contract period.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2700 LAGOON PARK DR, MONTGOMERY, AL, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline