Neumann Brothers, Inc. awarded $25.2M contract for construction at Middletown AFRC - BRAC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,211,234 ($25.2M)

Contractor: Neumann Brothers, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-14

End Date: 2011-09-01

Contract Duration: 595 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 40

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MIDDLETOWN AFRC - BRAC

Place of Performance

Location: MIDDLETOWN, DES MOINES County, IOWA, 52638

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.2 million to NEUMANN BROTHERS, INC. for work described as: MIDDLETOWN AFRC - BRAC Key points: 1. The contract value of $25.2 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 4. The contract duration of 595 days indicates a substantial construction project. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major federal agency. 6. The project is located in Iowa, impacting the regional economy and workforce.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $25.2 million for commercial and institutional building construction appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Army would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to establish a clear cost ceiling, but the final cost could still fluctuate based on unforeseen site conditions or change orders.

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 40 bids suggests a robust level of interest and competition for this construction project. A high number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood that the government will receive a fair market value for the services rendered.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely drove down the final award price, ensuring that federal funds were used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Army, receiving upgraded facilities at Middletown AFRC. The contract delivers essential commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is concentrated in Iowa, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy. The project will likely involve a significant number of construction workers, impacting the local labor market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the fixed-price contract.
Risk of delays in project completion impacting the operational readiness of Middletown AFRC.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage a large-scale construction project effectively.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive pricing environment.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps to establish cost certainty for the government.
The Department of the Army's oversight is expected to ensure project quality and adherence to specifications.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as government facilities, offices, and public institutions. Federal spending in this area is crucial for maintaining and upgrading critical infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot or per project for similar government construction projects across different agencies and regions.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract, nor does it detail subcontracting plans. Given the large contract value, it is possible that larger construction firms were the primary bidders. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were directed towards small businesses, which could have a positive impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and ongoing oversight activities may not be fully public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Federal Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns
Risk of project delays
Contractor performance risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.2 million to NEUMANN BROTHERS, INC.. MIDDLETOWN AFRC - BRAC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NEUMANN BROTHERS, 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 $25.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-14. End: 2011-09-01.

What is the track record of Neumann Brothers, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in construction?

A review of Neumann Brothers, Inc.'s federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining past performance on similar construction projects, including their adherence to schedules, budget management, and quality of work. Data from contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS can provide insights into their past awards, performance ratings, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A strong track record with federal agencies, especially the Department of the Army, would indicate a lower risk for this current project.

How does the awarded amount of $25.2 million compare to similar construction projects for military bases?

To benchmark the $25.2 million award, one would compare it to the cost of similar construction projects for military bases of comparable size and scope. This involves analyzing factors such as square footage, complexity of the construction (e.g., specialized facilities, environmental considerations), and the specific geographic location, which can influence labor and material costs. Data from federal procurement databases can be used to identify comparable contracts. If this project's cost per square foot or overall value is significantly higher or lower than similar projects, it could indicate either exceptional value or potential overpricing/underbidding.

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

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price contract of this magnitude ($25.2 million) is the potential for the contractor to incur losses if costs exceed the agreed-upon price. This can lead to pressure on the contractor to cut corners on quality or safety, or to seek change orders to recoup unexpected expenses. For the government, the risk lies in potential disputes over change orders and the possibility that the contractor may not have adequately accounted for all potential costs, leading to a less competitive initial bid. Effective government oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks by ensuring adherence to specifications and managing any necessary modifications.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money for large federal construction projects?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money in large federal construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, the government maximizes the pool of potential contractors, which typically drives down prices through competitive pressure. The presence of 40 bidders in this case suggests a highly competitive environment, increasing the likelihood that the contract was awarded at a fair and reasonable price. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the government's ability to evaluate bids accurately.

What is the historical spending trend for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army would provide context for this $25.2 million award. This involves examining annual or multi-year spending data for similar construction projects. Trends might reveal whether spending in this category is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. Understanding these patterns can help assess if the current award is consistent with historical investment levels or represents a significant deviation, potentially indicating a shift in priorities or a response to specific infrastructure needs.

What are the implications of the 595-day contract duration for project management and oversight?

A contract duration of 595 days (approximately 1.6 years) for a construction project of this scale necessitates robust project management and sustained oversight. The Department of the Army will need to dedicate resources to monitor progress, ensure quality control, manage potential delays, and process payments according to the established schedule. Longer durations increase the risk of encountering unforeseen issues, such as changes in regulations, material price fluctuations, or contractor performance degradation over time. Effective communication and proactive problem-solving between the government and the contractor are essential for successful completion within this timeframe.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: W912LP10R0002

Offers Received: 40

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1435 OHIO ST, DES MOINES, IA, 03

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,211,234

Exercised Options: $25,211,234

Current Obligation: $25,211,234

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline