Monarch Construction Company awarded $17.5M for building construction, highlighting a competitive procurement process

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,548,383 ($17.5M)

Contractor: Monarch Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-05-31

End Date: 2012-06-29

Contract Duration: 2,586 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45433

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.5 million to MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract value of $17.5 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. A full and open competition suggests a robust market response and potential for competitive pricing. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The contract duration of over 7 years indicates a long-term project requirement. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major federal agency. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $17.5 million contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable contract data. However, the duration of over seven years suggests a substantial project scope. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids to account for contingencies. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per unit of construction against similar projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies during the same period.

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. This method typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The presence of 7 bidders, as suggested by the data, is a healthy number that likely contributed to price discovery and ensured the government received a competitive offer. This approach is generally favored for maximizing value and minimizing the risk of overpayment.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by leveraging market forces to secure the best possible price and quality for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will utilize the constructed facilities. The contract delivers commercial and institutional building construction services, essential for operational readiness and infrastructure development. The geographic impact is centered in Ohio, where the contract was performed, potentially creating local jobs and economic activity. The contract implies a need for skilled labor in the construction trades, contributing to workforce employment in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 7 years) could lead to scope creep or unforeseen cost increases if not managed meticulously.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes result in higher initial bids to cover contractor risk, potentially impacting overall value if not competitively bid.
Lack of specific details on the type of buildings constructed makes it difficult to assess the true value and necessity of the expenditure.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with 7 bidders, indicating a competitive market and likely fair pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contract structure transfers risk to the contractor, potentially leading to cost certainty for the government.
The contract was awarded to Monarch Construction Company, suggesting a track record in fulfilling government contracts.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, encompassing a wide range of projects from military bases to administrative facilities. This contract, under NAICS code 236220, falls within the commercial and institutional building construction subsector. Federal spending in this area is often driven by infrastructure modernization, expansion, and maintenance requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar government-funded construction projects in the Midwest region during the mid-2000s to early 2010s.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. However, as a large prime contract awarded through full and open competition, Monarch Construction Company may have opportunities to engage small businesses as subcontractors, depending on their own subcontracting plans and the availability of qualified small business vendors in the construction trades within Ohio.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by fixing the total cost. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's execution or award.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Procurement
Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or scope creep if not managed effectively.
Lack of specific project details hinders comprehensive value assessment.
Potential for higher initial bids due to firm-fixed-price structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.5 million to MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-05-31. End: 2012-06-29.

What was the specific nature and scope of the commercial and institutional buildings constructed under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract under NAICS code 236220, which pertains to Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. However, it does not specify the exact type, size, or purpose of the buildings constructed. This could range from barracks and administrative offices to training facilities or support structures. Without this granular detail, it is difficult to fully assess the project's impact, the appropriateness of the cost, or compare it effectively to other construction projects. Further investigation into the contract's statement of work or associated documentation would be necessary to ascertain the specific deliverables.

How did Monarch Construction Company's bid compare to other bidders in terms of price and technical merit?

The data indicates that the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' and lists '7' bidders. While this suggests a competitive process, it does not provide the specific bid amounts or technical evaluations for each of the seven participants. To understand the competitiveness of Monarch Construction Company's winning bid, one would need access to the bid tabulation and source selection decision documents. This would reveal if Monarch's offer was the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, or if a higher-priced offer was selected based on superior technical qualifications. Such information is crucial for determining if the government achieved optimal value.

What is the historical spending pattern for Monarch Construction Company with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing Monarch Construction Company's historical spending with the Department of Defense (DoD) would require accessing federal procurement databases and filtering awards specifically to this contractor and agency. This contract, awarded in 2005, represents a significant award of $17.5 million. Understanding their broader contract history with the DoD, including the types of services provided, contract values, and performance ratings, would offer context on their experience and reliability as a federal contractor. A pattern of successful, well-managed contracts would indicate lower risk, while a history of issues might raise concerns.

Were there any performance issues or contract modifications during the contract's duration (May 2005 - June 2012)?

The provided data does not include information on contract modifications, performance ratings, or any disputes that may have arisen during the contract's lifecycle. A contract duration of over seven years (2586 days) for a firm-fixed-price project often involves some level of modification, whether for minor scope adjustments, time extensions, or equitable adjustments due to unforeseen circumstances. Investigating contract modification history and performance reports (if available) would be essential to assess the contractor's execution, the government's management of the contract, and whether the project was completed successfully within the original or modified terms and budget.

How does the $17.5 million award compare to the typical scale of building construction contracts awarded by the Army?

The $17.5 million award for building construction by the Department of the Army falls within a moderate to large range for individual construction projects. The Army, like other branches of the Department of Defense, undertakes a wide variety of construction initiatives, from small facility upgrades to massive base developments. To benchmark this specific award, one would need to analyze the distribution of Army construction contract values over the period this contract was active (2005-2012). This would involve looking at the frequency of contracts in the $10M-$20M range versus smaller or larger projects to understand if this award was typical, exceptionally large, or relatively small for the scope of work it entailed.

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: SEALED BID

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1654 SHERMAN AVE, CINCINNATI, OH, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,358

Exercised Options: $27,358

Current Obligation: $17,548,383

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline