Department of the Army awards $31.8M contract for construction of AFRC at Moreno Valley, CA

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,761,290 ($31.8M)

Contractor: COX Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-29

End Date: 2009-11-20

Contract Duration: 906 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC AT MORENO VALLEY, CA

Place of Performance

Location: MORENO VALLEY, RIVERSIDE County, CALIFORNIA, 92552

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.8 million to COX CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC AT MORENO VALLEY, CA Key points: 1. The contract was awarded using full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. 3. The contract duration of 906 days suggests a significant construction project. 4. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a major component of the Department of Defense. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without comparable projects in the immediate vicinity or detailed cost breakdowns. However, the firm-fixed-price structure generally aims to control costs for the government. The total award amount of $31.8 million for a large construction project of this nature appears within a reasonable range for its scope, assuming standard construction complexities and market conditions at the time of award.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bidders indicates a moderate level of competition for this project. While not an exceptionally high number of bidders, it suggests that the market was sufficiently engaged to provide some price discovery and potentially competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower prices and better value compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel who will utilize the Air Force Readiness Center (AFRC). The contract delivers the construction of a significant facility, contributing to military infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Moreno Valley, California, with potential indirect economic benefits to the local community through employment and material sourcing. The project likely supported construction industry jobs in the California region during its execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occur, though mitigated by firm-fixed-price.
Ensuring timely completion within the 906-day duration is critical to operational readiness.
Quality control during construction to meet military specifications.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to a single contractor streamlines project management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. The market for large-scale military facility construction is a specialized segment within this sector, often characterized by stringent requirements, security protocols, and specific bidding processes. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large federal or state construction projects of similar scale and purpose.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small business set-asides is nil. However, the prime contractor, Cox Construction Co., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, contributing to the broader small business ecosystem. Further analysis would be needed to determine subcontracting plans and actual participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and project management personnel within the Department of the Army. Quality assurance representatives would likely monitor construction progress and adherence to specifications. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.8 million to COX CONSTRUCTION CO. CONSTRUCTION OF AFRC AT MORENO VALLEY, CA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COX CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-29. End: 2009-11-20.

What was the track record of Cox Construction Co. with federal contracts prior to this award?

Prior to this $31.8 million award in 2007, Cox Construction Co. likely had a history of federal contracting, though specific details would require a deeper dive into historical contract databases. Federal agencies typically vet contractors based on past performance, financial stability, and technical capabilities. For a contract of this magnitude, it's probable that Cox Construction Co. had demonstrated experience with similar-sized projects and met the government's performance standards. Without access to detailed past performance reviews or a comprehensive contract history, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of their track record specifically related to this project's scope and complexity.

How does the $31.8 million award compare to similar AFRC construction projects?

Comparing the $31.8 million award for the AFRC at Moreno Valley, CA, to similar projects requires access to a database of comparable federal construction contracts, ideally for Air Force Readiness Centers or similar military facilities. Factors influencing cost include project size, specific functional requirements, location (which affects labor and material costs), and the prevailing economic conditions at the time of award (2007). If this project involved extensive specialized infrastructure or unique architectural designs, costs could naturally be higher. A benchmark analysis would involve identifying projects with similar square footage, intended use, and completion dates to assess if the price per square foot or overall cost was competitive within the federal construction market.

What were the primary risk indicators associated with this construction contract?

Key risk indicators for this construction contract would likely include potential for unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil stability, environmental hazards), fluctuations in material costs (though mitigated by firm-fixed-price), labor availability and cost in Southern California, and the contractor's ability to meet stringent military construction specifications and timelines. The duration of 906 days also presents a risk of schedule slippage. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract shifts significant cost risk to the contractor, but performance failures or delays could still impact the government's operational readiness and potentially lead to disputes or claims.

How effective was the full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The effectiveness of full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayers hinges on the number and quality of bids received. With three bidders, there was a degree of competition, which generally promotes price discovery and encourages contractors to offer competitive pricing to win the award. However, the optimal level of competition can vary. If the market for specialized military construction is limited, three bidders might represent a significant portion of the qualified pool. To fully assess value, one would need to compare the awarded price against independent cost estimates or benchmark data for similar projects. The firm-fixed-price structure further supports taxpayer value by capping the government's financial exposure.

What is the historical spending pattern for AFRC construction by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for AFRC construction by the Department of the Army would involve reviewing contract awards over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in the frequency, size, and types of AFRC projects undertaken. It would also highlight the typical contracting methods used (e.g., full and open vs. other sources) and the average contract values. Understanding these patterns helps in budgeting, forecasting future needs, and identifying potential cost efficiencies or areas where spending has increased significantly. Without specific historical data, it's presumed that such construction is project-driven and dependent on military readiness requirements and funding allocations.

Were there any significant cost changes or contract modifications during the contract period?

Information regarding significant cost changes or contract modifications for this specific contract (awarded in 2007, ending 2009) is not directly available from the provided summary data. Contract modifications can occur due to scope changes, unforeseen conditions, or adjustments in contract terms. For a firm-fixed-price contract, modifications that increase the price are typically scrutinized heavily and reserved for situations where the government directs changes or unforeseen circumstances necessitate adjustments beyond the contractor's control. A review of the contract's official modification history, if publicly accessible, would be required to answer this question definitively.

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: W912QR07R0041

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3170 SCOTT ST, VISTA, CA, 92081

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,761,290

Exercised Options: $31,761,290

Current Obligation: $31,761,290

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline