DoD's $52.6M Luke AFB Training Center contract awarded to Archer Western Contractors shows fair value and strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $52,582,850 ($52.6M)

Contractor: Archer Western Contractors, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-08-30

End Date: 2018-07-31

Contract Duration: 2,161 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF F35 BEDDOWN PROGRAM, ACADEMIC TRAINING CENTER (ATC), LUKE ARF, AZ

Place of Performance

Location: LUKE AFB, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85309

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $52.6 million to ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF F35 BEDDOWN PROGRAM, ACADEMIC TRAINING CENTER (ATC), LUKE ARF, AZ Key points: 1. Contract value represents a reasonable investment for a large-scale construction project. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding environment, likely leading to better pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Project duration of over 5 years indicates a significant, long-term construction undertaking. 5. The contract aligns with the Army's need for enhanced training facilities. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating a focus on prime contractor capability.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of approximately $52.6 million for the construction of an academic training center at Luke Air Force Base appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional construction projects, the cost per square foot or per unit of training capacity would provide a more precise value assessment. However, given the firm-fixed-price nature, the government has a defined cost ceiling, which is a positive indicator for value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 11 bids suggests a robust competitive landscape for this significant construction project. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more cost-effective outcomes for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A high number of bidders in a full and open competition typically translates to taxpayer savings by driving down prices through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and Air Force personnel who will utilize the new academic training facilities. The contract delivers essential infrastructure for advanced military training and education. The project's geographic impact is localized to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. The construction activities likely supported a significant number of jobs in the construction sector within Arizona.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting training schedules.
Ensuring compliance with all environmental and safety regulations during construction.
Managing the long-term maintenance and operational costs of the new facility.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract limits cost uncertainty for the government.
Full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Award to a contractor with experience in large-scale institutional construction.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, with substantial annual spending on facilities and infrastructure. This project represents a specific investment in training infrastructure, which is critical for maintaining military readiness and technological advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large military construction projects or academic facility builds.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This suggests that the prime contractor, Archer Western Contractors, LLC, was selected based on its capacity to handle a project of this magnitude. While this may limit direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors, it does not preclude them from participating as subcontractors to the prime.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is subject to standard federal procurement oversight mechanisms. As a Department of Defense contract, it likely falls under the purview of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight by establishing a ceiling. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON) Program
Department of the Army Facilities Engineering
Air Force Training Infrastructure
Academic Facility Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs without contract modification.
Risk of construction delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring long-term durability and low maintenance costs of the facility.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $52.6 million to ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF F35 BEDDOWN PROGRAM, ACADEMIC TRAINING CENTER (ATC), LUKE ARF, AZ

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $52.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-08-30. End: 2018-07-31.

What is the track record of Archer Western Contractors, LLC on similar government contracts?

Archer Western Contractors, LLC has a history of performing large-scale construction projects for various government agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their experience often includes complex institutional and infrastructure developments. A detailed review of their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts, particularly those involving educational or training facilities, would be necessary to fully assess their suitability and past success rates. Analyzing past performance evaluations and any documented issues or successes on prior government contracts would provide further insight into their reliability and capability for projects of this nature.

How does the awarded price compare to similar academic training center constructions?

Directly comparing the $52.6 million award to similar academic training center constructions requires access to detailed cost data for comparable projects, including square footage, specific training capabilities, and geographic location, as these factors significantly influence construction costs. Without such granular data, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, the fact that 11 bids were received under full and open competition suggests that the market found the project requirements and potential pricing to be competitive. The firm-fixed-price nature also implies that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if the bid was competitive.

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

The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract, while generally favorable for the government by capping costs, include the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability if their initial bid was too low or if unforeseen site conditions arise. There's also a risk of contractor default or significant delays, although the presence of multiple bidders and the contractor's experience may mitigate this. The government's risk is primarily in ensuring the contractor's bid accurately reflected the full scope and complexity, and in diligent oversight to ensure contract compliance and quality standards are met throughout the project lifecycle.

How effective is the full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in this case?

The full and open competition, evidenced by 11 bids, is a strong mechanism for ensuring value for taxpayer money in this case. It fosters a competitive environment where multiple contractors vie for the project, driving down prices and encouraging efficiency. This process allows the government to select the most advantageous offer, considering both price and technical qualifications. The high number of bidders suggests that the project was well-defined and attractive to the market, increasing the likelihood that the awarded price reflects a fair market value and that taxpayers are not overpaying for the construction services.

What is the historical spending trend for academic training facilities by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for academic training facilities by the Department of the Army are part of the broader military construction (MILCON) budget. The Army consistently invests in training infrastructure to support its personnel and evolving operational needs. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on modernization requirements, geopolitical demands, and overall defense appropriations. Analyzing multi-year budget data and specific program allocations for training facilities would reveal trends, identifying periods of increased investment driven by new training doctrines or equipment, or periods of reduced spending due to budget constraints or completion of major facility upgrades.

Are there any specific performance metrics or KPIs tied to this contract's success?

The provided data does not specify individual performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tied directly to this contract's success beyond the standard contract terms and completion requirements. Typically, for large construction projects, performance is evaluated based on adherence to schedule, budget (within the fixed price), quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and meeting all technical specifications outlined in the contract documents. The contracting officer would monitor these aspects throughout the project lifecycle. Specific KPIs might be detailed in the contract's statement of work or performance clauses, but are not visible in this summary data.

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

Solicitation ID: W912PL12R0005

Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Walsh Group Ltd., the (UEI: 121476675)

Address: 2410 PACES FERRY ROAD STE 600, ATLANTA, GA, 30339

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,582,850

Exercised Options: $52,582,850

Current Obligation: $52,582,850

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1087

Total Subaward Amount: $820,831,515

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline