Okland Construction awarded $23.8M for industrial building construction, highlighting long-term project execution
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,811,322 ($23.8M)
Contractor: Okland Construction Company, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2003-12-31
End Date: 2009-06-11
Contract Duration: 1,989 days
Daily Burn Rate: $12.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 8
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Place of Performance
Location: INDIAN SPRINGS, CLARK County, NEVADA, 89018
State: Nevada Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $23.8 million to OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Demonstrates sustained performance over a multi-year period. 2. Contract type suggests predictable cost management. 3. Competition level indicates a potentially efficient market. 4. Project duration implies significant scope and complexity. 5. Geographic focus on Nevada may indicate regional specialization. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Army, aligning with defense infrastructure needs.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $23.8 million for industrial building construction over a period of nearly 2000 days (approximately 5.5 years) suggests a substantial project. Without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale industrial facilities in the region or for the Department of the Army, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive sign for the government if the final cost is well-managed.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. With 8 bidders, this indicates a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. A robust competitive environment typically drives down prices and encourages innovation as contractors vie for the award.
Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently, as the government benefited from a competitive bidding process that aimed to secure the best value.
Public Impact
The Department of the Army benefits from the construction of necessary industrial facilities. The project supports the development of infrastructure critical for defense operations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Nevada, potentially stimulating local economic activity. The construction project likely created numerous jobs in the skilled trades and related industries within Nevada.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration could introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations or changes in project requirements over time.
- Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to scope creep if not managed meticulously, potentially increasing overall cost if changes are approved.
Positive Signals
- The award to Okland Construction Company, Inc. suggests a proven track record in handling significant construction projects.
- The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
- The high number of bidders indicates strong market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically industrial building construction. The market for large-scale industrial construction is often characterized by significant capital investment, specialized labor requirements, and stringent regulatory compliance. The Department of Defense is a major client in this sector, frequently requiring specialized facilities for logistics, maintenance, and production. Benchmarking this contract's value would require comparison to similar military or large industrial facility projects within the United States, considering factors like size, complexity, and location.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not specify any small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through this specific award mechanism appears limited. However, the prime contractor, Okland Construction Company, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the project, which would be a secondary impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified facility within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Defense Infrastructure Projects
- Industrial Facility Development
- Government Building Contracts
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may increase exposure to market volatility.
- Firm Fixed Price contracts can be less flexible to scope changes.
Tags
construction, industrial-building, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, nevada, large-contract, multi-year-project
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $23.8 million to OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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 $23.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2003-12-31. End: 2009-06-11.
What is Okland Construction Company, Inc.'s track record with the federal government, particularly the Department of Defense?
Okland Construction Company, Inc. has a history of federal contracting, including work with the Department of Defense. This specific contract, valued at approximately $23.8 million and awarded in December 2003 with an end date in June 2009, demonstrates their capacity to handle large, multi-year projects. While this data point highlights a significant award, a comprehensive assessment of their track record would involve reviewing all their federal contracts, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any past issues or disputes to understand their overall reliability and performance history with government agencies.
How does the $23.8 million contract value compare to similar industrial building construction projects for the Department of the Army?
Comparing the $23.8 million contract value requires context regarding the scope, size, and specific requirements of the industrial building constructed. Industrial facilities can vary immensely in complexity, from simple warehouses to highly specialized manufacturing or maintenance plants. Without detailed specifications for this particular project (e.g., square footage, specialized equipment integration, environmental controls), direct comparison is difficult. However, for the Department of the Army, projects in the tens of millions are common for significant infrastructure development. Benchmarking against other firm fixed-price contracts for similar types of industrial buildings awarded around the same period (2003-2009) would provide a more accurate assessment of whether this price was competitive and represented good value.
What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project spanning nearly six years?
The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially one spanning nearly six years (December 2003 to June 2009), is the potential for the contractor to incur significant cost overruns if market prices for materials, labor, or subcontractors increase substantially during the contract period. While the FFP structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, extreme market volatility or unforeseen project complexities could strain the contractor's ability to deliver without compromising quality or seeking change orders. For the government, the risk lies in potentially paying a premium if the contractor heavily front-loads risk into the price, or if unforeseen issues necessitate costly contract modifications despite the FFP nature.
What does the presence of 8 bidders in a full and open competition imply about the market for this type of construction?
The fact that 8 bidders submitted offers for this industrial building construction contract under full and open competition suggests a robust and competitive market for this type of work within the relevant geographic area (Nevada) and for the Department of the Army. A higher number of bidders generally indicates that the opportunity was attractive to multiple firms, that the barriers to entry were not prohibitively high, and that the government likely received a range of competitive proposals. This level of competition is favorable for the government as it increases the likelihood of obtaining a fair market price and high-quality service, while also fostering a dynamic industry landscape.
How might the geographic focus on Nevada impact the project's execution and cost?
A geographic focus on Nevada for an industrial building construction project can have several implications. It may leverage local labor markets and construction expertise, potentially reducing travel costs and improving project familiarity with regional regulations and conditions. However, depending on the specific location within Nevada and the project's scale, it could also present challenges related to the availability of specialized materials or skilled labor, potentially driving up costs if resources need to be transported from further afield. Furthermore, local economic conditions, environmental regulations specific to Nevada, and proximity to necessary infrastructure (transportation, utilities) would all play a role in project execution and overall cost.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 8
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 1978 S WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2003-12-31
Current End Date: 2009-06-11
Potential End Date: 2009-06-11 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-06-04
More Contracts from Okland Construction Company, Inc.
- CMC Design Phase Services and Construction of U.S. District Courthouse Salt Lake City, UT — $180.9M (General Services Administration)
- Squadron Operations AMU/ Hangar, Complete, Creech AFB, Nevada — $89.7M (Department of Defense)
- 200606!600457!2100!w91238!usa Engineer Dist Sacramento !W9123806C0008 !A!N! !N! ! !20060215!20080930!056090319!056090319!056090319!n!okland Construction Company IN!1978 S West Temple !salt Lake City !ut!84115!35410!011!49!hill AFB !davis !utah !+000017452000!n!n!000000000000!y199!other Miscellaneous Buildings !C2 !construction !000 !NOT Discernable !236220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!006!b! !D!N!C! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !d!d!a!a!000!a!b!y! !N! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $37.3M (Department of Defense)
- F-22 Radar Cross Section Test Facility, Hill AFB, UT — $26.4M (Department of Defense)
- NEW Border Patrol Station, Wellton, AZ — $26.4M (Department of Defense)
View all Okland Construction Company, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)