DoD's $10.7M Reno construction contract awarded to Advon Corp. with 540-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,696,940 ($10.7M)

Contractor: Advon Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2026-01-15

End Date: 2027-07-09

Contract Duration: 540 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: FY26 FT JAX BLDG 2468 RENO

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBIA, RICHLAND County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29217

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.7 million to ADVON CORPORATION for work described as: FY26 FT JAX BLDG 2468 RENO Key points: 1. Value appears reasonable given the scope of construction services. 2. Full and open competition suggests potential for competitive pricing. 3. Contract duration is standard for projects of this scale. 4. Project aligns with broader military infrastructure modernization efforts. 5. Advon Corporation's performance history will be a key indicator of success. 6. Geographic location in Reno may influence labor and material costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $10.7 million for a 540-day construction project appears within a reasonable range for commercial and institutional building construction. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts of comparable size and scope would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. Factors such as specific building requirements, location-based material and labor costs, and the complexity of the build will influence the final determination of whether this represents excellent or fair value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and considered. The presence of four bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. A competitive bidding process generally leads to more favorable pricing for the government and ensures that the most capable contractor is selected.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down costs through market forces and encourages a wider pool of contractors to participate, potentially leading to better quality and innovation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, which will receive upgraded or new facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely involving new structures or significant renovations. The geographic impact is localized to Reno, Nevada, potentially creating local construction jobs. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction trades and related support services in the Reno area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays due to supply chain disruptions or labor shortages.
Ensuring Advon Corporation meets all quality and safety standards throughout the project lifecycle.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Firm Fixed Price contract type helps control costs.
Clear delivery and performance periods defined.
Department of the Army oversight ensures adherence to requirements.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The federal government is a major consumer of construction services, particularly for military bases and government facilities. Spending in this sector is influenced by infrastructure needs, modernization programs, and national security priorities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects awarded by federal agencies for similar types of facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While Advon Corporation is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data, the contract's value suggests it could be awarded to either small or large businesses. There is no information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army, with potential involvement from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and payment milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Facilities
General Services Administration (GSA) Buildings
Federal Courthouse Construction
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Contractor performance and quality control.
Adequacy of competition given source exclusions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.7 million to ADVON CORPORATION. FY26 FT JAX BLDG 2468 RENO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVON CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-01-15. End: 2027-07-09.

What is Advon Corporation's track record with federal construction contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

A review of Advon Corporation's federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. Key metrics to examine include the number of past contracts, their value, performance ratings (if available), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Specifically, their experience with projects of similar scale and complexity for the Department of the Army would be highly relevant. A positive performance history with the DoD would indicate a lower risk for this current contract. Conversely, a history of performance issues could signal potential risks related to schedule, cost, or quality.

How does the $10.7 million contract value compare to similar construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense in the last three fiscal years?

To benchmark the $10.7 million contract value, we would need to analyze recent DoD construction contracts for similar facilities (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training centers) in comparable geographic regions. Factors such as square footage, type of construction (new build vs. renovation), and specific architectural requirements would need to be normalized. If similar projects have been awarded for significantly less or more, it would indicate whether this contract represents a particularly good or potentially overvalued deal. Without this comparative data, the value assessment remains preliminary.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this specific construction contract, beyond general project risks?

Specific risk indicators for this contract include the geographic location in Reno, Nevada, which may have unique labor market dynamics, material availability, and permitting processes. The firm fixed-price contract type, while beneficial for cost control, can shift risk to the contractor if unforeseen issues arise, potentially leading to claims or disputes if not managed carefully. The duration of 540 days also presents a moderate window for potential external disruptions (e.g., economic downturns, regulatory changes). The specific nature of the 'FT JAX BLDG 2468' project (e.g., specialized equipment installation, environmental considerations) could introduce further unique risks.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award method in ensuring competitive pricing for construction projects of this nature?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method is a variation of full and open competition. It implies that the agency initially intended to use full and open competition but then excluded certain sources for specific, justifiable reasons (e.g., unique capabilities, national security). While it aims for broad competition, the exclusion of sources can potentially limit the number of bidders and the intensity of competition compared to unrestricted full and open competition. The effectiveness in ensuring competitive pricing depends heavily on the justification for excluding sources and the remaining pool of qualified bidders. If the exclusions were narrow and many capable firms remained, pricing could still be competitive.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army in the past five fiscal years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army would provide context for the $10.7 million award. This involves examining the volume and total value of contracts awarded for building construction, facility upgrades, and infrastructure development over the last five years. Trends might reveal periods of increased investment driven by modernization initiatives, base consolidation, or specific geopolitical needs. Understanding these patterns can help assess whether current spending levels are consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and identify any significant shifts in procurement strategies or budget allocations for construction.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type on contractor performance and potential for change orders?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type establishes a price that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This incentivizes the contractor to control costs and perform efficiently to maximize profit. For the government, it provides cost certainty. However, FFP contracts can shift risk to the contractor; if costs exceed the fixed price, the contractor absorbs the loss. This can sometimes lead to contractors being less willing to accommodate changes or potentially cutting corners on quality if not closely monitored. Change orders are typically only issued for significant scope changes outside the original contract's intent, and they require careful negotiation to avoid inflating the overall project cost.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912HP25R9003

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2882 REMINGTON GREEN LN, TALLAHASSEE, FL, 32308

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,696,940

Exercised Options: $10,696,940

Current Obligation: $10,696,940

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HP23D4000

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline