DoD's $13.4M Bangor Training Facility Construction Contract Awarded to Nickerson & O'Day, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,441,758 ($13.4M)

Contractor: Nickerson & O'day, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-05-18

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,323 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING, BANGOR, MAINE

Place of Performance

Location: BANGOR, PENOBSCOT County, MAINE, 04401

State: Maine Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.4 million to NICKERSON & O'DAY, INC. for work described as: REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING, BANGOR, MAINE Key points: 1. Contract awarded for construction of a regional training institute building in Bangor, Maine. 2. The contract was competed using full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 3. The contract value is approximately $13.4 million, with a duration of 1323 days. 4. The primary contractor is Nickerson & O'Day, Inc. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army. 7. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating a set price for the work. 8. The project is located in Maine (ME), USA.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $13.4 million for a regional training institute building appears within a reasonable range for construction projects of this nature. However, without specific details on the building's size, scope, and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar government or private sector construction projects in the region would provide a clearer picture of whether the pricing reflects competitive market rates. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that cost overruns are primarily the responsibility of the contractor, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the initial bid was competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the solicitation, which could limit the overall pool of potential bidders. The fact that there were 8 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition, which is generally favorable for price discovery and achieving a fair market price. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing to secure the contract. The presence of 8 bidders suggests that the government likely received a range of price proposals, increasing the likelihood of a cost-effective award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel who will utilize the regional training institute. The project delivers a new construction facility for training purposes. The geographic impact is localized to Bangor, Maine, providing a training hub for the region. The construction phase will likely involve local and regional labor, contributing to the construction workforce in Maine. The completed facility will support ongoing military training operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type could potentially limit the number of qualified bidders and impact price competitiveness.
Lack of detailed project specifications makes it difficult to fully assess the value for money.
The duration of the contract (1323 days) is substantial, increasing the potential for unforeseen issues or delays.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a full and open competition process, indicating an effort to maximize bidder participation.
The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The presence of 8 bidders suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Government construction projects, particularly those for defense purposes, often represent substantial investments. Benchmarking this $13.4 million project against similar military or institutional building constructions would be necessary for a precise comparison. The market for large-scale construction is competitive, with numerous firms capable of undertaking such projects, though specialized requirements can influence market dynamics.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. However, the prime contractor, Nickerson & O'Day, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would indirectly benefit the small business ecosystem. Further investigation into the prime contractor's subcontracting plan would be needed to assess this impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, where the contractor is responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon cost and timeline. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific project-level oversight details are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Regional Training Facility Construction
Commercial Building Construction Contracts
Firm Fixed Price Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Lack of detailed project scope makes value assessment difficult.
Long contract duration increases risk of unforeseen issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.4 million to NICKERSON & O'DAY, INC.. REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING, BANGOR, MAINE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NICKERSON & O'DAY, 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 $13.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-05-18. End: 2012-12-31.

What is the specific scope of work and detailed specifications for the REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING in Bangor, Maine?

The provided data does not include the specific scope of work or detailed specifications for the REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING. This information is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the project's complexity, materials, and intended use, which directly impacts the assessment of its $13.4 million cost. Typically, such details would be found in the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS). Without these specifics, it is difficult to benchmark the value against similar construction projects or to identify potential risks associated with the scope. Further analysis would require accessing the full contract documentation.

How does the $13.4 million contract value compare to similar regional training facility construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

A direct comparison of the $13.4 million contract value for the REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE (RTI) BUILDING requires access to data on similar projects. Factors such as building size (square footage), complexity of design, specific training functionalities, and geographic location significantly influence construction costs. Projects of this scale can range widely. For instance, a basic barracks facility might cost less per square foot than a specialized training center with advanced simulation capabilities. Benchmarking against other DoD construction projects in similar climates and with comparable functionalities would be necessary. Without this comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state whether $13.4 million represents excellent, fair, or questionable value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and quality assurance measures stipulated in the contract for Nickerson & O'Day, Inc.?

The provided data does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or quality assurance (QA) measures for this contract. However, as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for construction, the primary performance indicator is the successful completion of the building according to the contract's specifications, drawings, and schedule. Quality assurance would typically involve government inspections at various construction milestones (e.g., foundation, framing, electrical, plumbing) to ensure compliance with building codes, industry standards, and the contract's technical requirements. The contracting officer's representative (COR) would likely be responsible for overseeing these QA processes. The final acceptance of the building signifies satisfactory performance.

What is the track record of Nickerson & O'Day, Inc. in completing similar large-scale government construction projects on time and within budget?

The provided data does not include specific details on Nickerson & O'Day, Inc.'s past performance on similar projects. To assess their track record, one would need to review their contract history, including past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any history of contract modifications, delays, or disputes on comparable federal construction projects. A company's experience with firm fixed-price contracts and projects of similar magnitude and complexity would be relevant indicators. A thorough review of their past performance would inform the assessment of their reliability and capability for this specific project.

What is the historical spending pattern for regional training facilities or similar construction projects by the Department of the Army in Maine or the surrounding region?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending patterns for regional training facilities or similar construction projects by the Department of the Army in Maine or the surrounding region. To establish such a pattern, a broader analysis of historical contract awards within the relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 236220) and geographic area would be required. This would involve examining spending trends over several fiscal years, identifying the average contract values, the number of contracts awarded, and the primary contractors involved. Understanding historical spending can help contextualize the $13.4 million award and identify any significant deviations or trends.

What specific sources were excluded prior to the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' solicitation, and what was the justification?

The provided data states the contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' but does not specify which sources were excluded or the justification for their exclusion. This procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were deemed ineligible or were not solicited for reasons that were deemed necessary by the procuring agency. Justifications for excluding sources can vary, potentially including national security concerns, specific technical capabilities required that only certain firms possess, or prior performance issues. Understanding the rationale behind these exclusions is important for evaluating the true level of competition and its potential impact on pricing and innovation.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912JD09R0001

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 35 AIRPORT RD, BREWER, ME, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,441,758

Exercised Options: $13,441,758

Current Obligation: $13,441,758

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline