Department of the Army awards $34.7M contract for hydrant fuel system construction at Selfridge ANG Base

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,749,417 ($34.7M)

Contractor: Garco Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-08-20

End Date: 2019-06-28

Contract Duration: 1,408 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRESSURIZED HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM AT SELFRIDGE ANG BASE, MI

Place of Performance

Location: SELFRIDGE ANGB, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48045

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.7 million to GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRESSURIZED HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM AT SELFRIDGE ANG BASE, MI Key points: 1. Contract awarded to GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. for a firm-fixed-price definitive contract. 2. Project involves construction of a new pressurized hydrant fuel system. 3. Competition was full and open, indicating a broad market solicitation. 4. Contract duration spans over 1400 days, suggesting a complex, multi-phase project. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237120 points to pipeline construction. 6. The contract was awarded in August 2015 and completed in June 2019. 7. The project is located in Michigan, specifically at Selfridge Air National Guard Base.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $34.7 million for a pressurized hydrant fuel system construction project appears within a reasonable range for large-scale infrastructure development. Benchmarking against similar military base fuel system upgrades would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that cost overruns were intended to be borne by the contractor, which can be a positive indicator if managed effectively. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar projects, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

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 bids. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and innovation. The presence of 4 bids (no: 4) suggests a moderate level of interest from the market for this type of specialized construction. A higher number of bidders might have been expected for a project of this scale, but the specific nature of the work could limit the pool of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages competitive bidding, which can drive down costs and improve the quality of services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force and Army personnel stationed at Selfridge ANG Base, who will benefit from an upgraded and reliable fuel supply system. The project delivers essential infrastructure for aviation fuel storage and distribution, crucial for base operations and readiness. The geographic impact is localized to Selfridge ANG Base in Michigan. The contract likely supported jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades and project management, within Michigan.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or complexities arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage complex construction timelines and logistics effectively.
Risk of delays impacting base operational readiness if construction is not completed on schedule.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type mitigates cost uncertainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust market search was conducted.
Award to a single contractor (GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.) implies they met all technical and cost requirements.
Project completion within the specified timeframe (August 2015 - June 2019) is a positive indicator of performance.

Sector Analysis

The construction of specialized infrastructure like pressurized hydrant fuel systems falls within the broader construction and engineering services sector, with specific ties to the oil and gas pipeline industry (NAICS 237120). This sector is characterized by large-scale projects, significant capital investment, and specialized technical expertise. Federal spending in this area often supports military readiness and operational capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other military base infrastructure projects or large-scale fuel storage and distribution system constructions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false), and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. The absence of set-aside provisions means that opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting if GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. chose to engage them, or in competing for future, smaller-scale projects within this sector.

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. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that oversight would focus on ensuring adherence to the contract specifications, schedule, and quality standards. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Base Construction
Fuel Infrastructure Projects
Department of Defense Procurement
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Aviation Fuel Systems

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting base operations.
Ensuring long-term durability and minimal maintenance requirements for critical fuel infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.7 million to GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRESSURIZED HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM AT SELFRIDGE ANG BASE, MI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GARCO CONSTRUCTION, 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 $34.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-08-20. End: 2019-06-28.

What is the track record of GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. in performing similar large-scale federal construction projects?

Assessing GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s track record requires a deeper dive into their contract history with the federal government and other entities. Specifically, one would look for past performance on projects of similar scope, complexity, and value, particularly those involving fuel systems or pipeline construction for military installations. Analyzing past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or claims, and the successful completion of prior contracts would provide insight into their reliability, quality of work, and ability to manage complex projects. Without access to a comprehensive database of their past federal awards and performance reviews, it is difficult to definitively assess their track record for this specific project.

How does the final cost of $34.7 million compare to the initial estimated cost or budget for this hydrant fuel system project?

The provided data indicates the awarded contract value is $34,749,417.17. To compare this to the initial estimated cost or budget, one would need access to pre-award documentation, such as the Justification and Approval (J&A) for other than full and open competition (if applicable, though this was full and open) or the initial solicitation documents that might have included a budget range or independent government cost estimate (IGCE). If the awarded price is significantly higher than the IGCE, it could indicate issues with the bidding process, contractor proposals, or the government's initial cost assessment. Conversely, if it's within or below the estimated range, it suggests effective cost management and competitive pricing.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this construction contract?

Key performance indicators for a construction contract like this typically revolve around schedule adherence, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and adherence to technical specifications. For a fuel system, specific KPIs might include the integrity of the installed pipelines, the efficiency of the pumping systems, and the successful completion of pressure and leak testing. The final contract value and completion date are also indicators of success. Post-completion inspections and operational testing by the end-user (Selfridge ANG Base) would confirm if the system meets all functional requirements and performance standards. Any deviations or deficiencies noted during these phases would be critical performance metrics.

Were there any significant risks identified during the solicitation or award phase, and how were they mitigated?

Given the project's nature (construction of a pressurized fuel system), potential risks likely included unforeseen subsurface conditions, environmental hazards, complex integration with existing base infrastructure, and adherence to stringent military specifications. During the full and open competition phase, bidders would have been required to outline their risk mitigation strategies in their proposals. The government's evaluation would assess these strategies. Mitigation might have involved detailed site surveys, robust safety protocols, contingency planning in the contract, and close government oversight during construction. The firm-fixed-price contract itself acts as a mitigation tool by transferring some cost risk to the contractor.

How does the spending on this project compare to historical federal spending on similar fuel infrastructure projects at military bases?

To compare spending, one would need to analyze historical federal contract data for similar projects. This involves identifying contracts for fuel hydrant systems, storage facilities, or pipeline construction at other Air National Guard, Air Force, or Army bases. Key comparison points would include contract value adjusted for inflation, project scope, geographic location, and the year of award. For instance, comparing this $34.7 million project to similar projects awarded in the years immediately preceding or following 2015 would provide context. A higher or lower cost relative to inflation-adjusted historical data could indicate whether this project represented an efficient use of funds or a potential outlier.

What is the potential long-term operational and maintenance cost associated with this new fuel system, and was this factored into the initial procurement?

The initial procurement focuses on the construction cost. Long-term operational and maintenance (O&M) costs are typically budgeted separately by the agency operating the facility (in this case, the Air National Guard at Selfridge ANG Base). However, the design and materials specified in the construction contract can significantly influence future O&M expenses. A well-designed, durable system using high-quality components might have lower O&M costs over its lifecycle. Information on whether lifecycle cost analysis was a factor in the procurement decision would require reviewing the solicitation and award documentation. Agencies often consider lifecycle costs when evaluating proposals, especially for major infrastructure investments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Utility System Construction › Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures 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: W912QR15R0003

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4114 E BROADWAY AVE, SPOKANE, WA, 99202

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,986,417

Exercised Options: $34,749,417

Current Obligation: $34,749,417

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline