Army awards $26.3M for building repairs, with 6 bidders competing for the fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,290,909 ($26.3M)

Contractor: Gram JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-08-25

End Date: 2021-02-01

Contract Duration: 1,621 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BUILDING-WIDE REPAIRS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BELVOIR, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22060

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.3 million to GRAM JV for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BUILDING-WIDE REPAIRS Key points: 1. The contract value of $26.3 million appears reasonable given the duration and scope of building-wide repairs. 2. Full and open competition among six bidders suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. This contract supports facility maintenance and infrastructure within the Department of the Army. 5. The project duration of over 1600 days indicates a long-term commitment to facility upkeep.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $26.3 million over approximately 5.5 years (1621 days) suggests an average annual spend of around $4.8 million. Without specific details on the scope of 'building-wide repairs,' direct comparison is challenging. However, for large-scale facility maintenance and repair contracts, this level of investment is within a typical range for major military installations. The firm-fixed-price contract type generally indicates that the government has secured a defined price, which is favorable if the scope is well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with six bidders participating. This level of competition is a positive indicator, suggesting that multiple firms were capable of and interested in performing the required services. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood of the government securing the best value. The presence of six bidders implies a robust market for commercial and institutional building construction services.

Taxpayer Impact: The strong competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down the final price and ensured that the government received a fair market value for the extensive building repairs.

Public Impact

Military personnel and civilian employees stationed at the facility will benefit from improved and maintained building infrastructure. The contract delivers essential repair and maintenance services for critical government facilities. The geographic impact is localized to the Army installation in Virginia where the repairs are being conducted. The contract supports jobs within the construction sector, including skilled trades and project management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if 'building-wide repairs' is not precisely defined, leading to cost overruns.
Contractor performance risks related to quality of repairs and adherence to schedule over the long duration.
Dependency on a single contractor for an extended period for essential facility maintenance.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Long contract duration allows for sustained facility upkeep and planning.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the repair, maintenance, and construction of non-residential buildings. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, particularly for its vast portfolio of military bases, administrative buildings, and research facilities. Spending in this sector is influenced by infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and the lifecycle of existing government properties. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against similar large-scale repair contracts for federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large-value contract awarded under full and open competition, it is unlikely that small businesses were the primary focus for the prime contract award. However, the prime contractor, GRAM JV, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill specific portions of the work, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance, quality, and compliance. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by fixing the cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Operations Support
Facility Maintenance Contracts
Government Building Renovations

Risk Flags

Potential for undefined scope leading to cost growth.
Long contract duration increases performance monitoring needs.
Contractor financial stability and performance over extended period.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.3 million to GRAM JV. IGF::OT::IGF BUILDING-WIDE REPAIRS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRAM JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-08-25. End: 2021-02-01.

What specific types of building repairs were included in this $26.3 million contract?

The provided data classifies the contract under 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' (ND: 236220) and describes it as 'BUILDING-WIDE REPAIRS' (d: IGF::OT::IGF). However, it does not detail the specific nature of these repairs. This could range from structural repairs, HVAC system upgrades, electrical work, plumbing, roofing, interior renovations, or a combination thereof. A comprehensive understanding of the scope would require reviewing the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS). Without this detail, it's difficult to benchmark the value precisely against specific repair types.

How does the $26.3 million total contract value compare to similar building repair contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

Benchmarking this $26.3 million contract requires comparing it to similar 'building-wide repair' or large-scale facility maintenance contracts awarded by the Department of the Army or other federal agencies for comparable facility types and sizes. Given the contract duration of 1621 days (approx. 5.5 years), the average annual value is roughly $4.8 million. This figure needs to be assessed against the complexity and scale of the repairs. For instance, a contract solely for HVAC replacement would have different cost drivers than one encompassing structural, electrical, and plumbing overhauls. Without more specific scope details, a precise comparison is limited, but the annual spend is within a plausible range for significant facility upkeep.

What is the assessed risk level associated with this firm-fixed-price contract?

The firm-fixed-price (P) contract type generally indicates a lower cost risk for the government, as the price is set upfront. The primary risks shift to the contractor, GRAM JV. These risks include managing costs to stay within the fixed price, ensuring timely completion, and meeting quality standards. Potential risks for the government could arise if the scope was not adequately defined, leading to change orders, or if the contractor fails to perform adequately, necessitating contract termination and re-competition. The long duration (1621 days) also introduces risks related to contractor performance stability and potential for unforeseen issues impacting the repairs.

What does the competition level (6 bidders) imply about the contractor's track record and pricing?

The fact that six bidders competed for this contract suggests a healthy and competitive market for the services required. It implies that multiple contractors possess the capability and capacity to undertake large-scale building repairs. For pricing, strong competition typically drives prices down towards market rates, indicating that the government likely secured a competitive price. Regarding the contractor's track record, while GRAM JV won this contract, the presence of multiple bidders means they were selected from a pool of capable firms. Their specific track record would need further investigation, but winning in a competitive bid environment is a positive signal.

How has historical spending on building repairs by the Department of the Army trended over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for building repairs by the Department of the Army requires access to detailed federal procurement data over the specified period. Without that specific data, a trend analysis cannot be performed. However, it is generally understood that military branches consistently require significant investment in facility maintenance and repair due to the extensive infrastructure they manage. Factors influencing spending include aging facilities, modernization initiatives, operational tempo, and budget allocations. This $26.3 million contract represents a portion of that ongoing investment.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in Virginia (SN: VIRGINIA)?

The contract being awarded and presumably performed in Virginia (SN: VIRGINIA) indicates that the Department of the Army has facilities in that state requiring extensive repairs. Virginia hosts numerous significant Army installations, including Fort Belvoir, Fort Lee, and the Pentagon. This contract likely supports the maintenance and operational readiness of one or more of these facilities. The geographic location can influence labor costs, material availability, and logistical considerations for the contractor. It also signifies a direct investment in the infrastructure supporting military operations within that specific region.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912DY13R0015

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 101 DAVIS AVE SW, LEESBURG, VA, 20175

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Joint Venture Women Owned Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,290,909

Exercised Options: $26,290,909

Current Obligation: $26,290,909

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DY15D0059

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline