Department of Defense awarded $107M construction contract to Gilbane Federal, spanning over 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $107,343,542 ($107.3M)

Contractor: Gilbane Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-04-21

End Date: 2014-12-30

Contract Duration: 2,079 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 30

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $107.3 million to GILBANE FEDERAL for work described as: MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN Key points: 1. Contract value of $107M over 5 years suggests a significant investment in construction services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a broad market engagement, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The contract's duration and cost-plus-fixed-fee structure warrant scrutiny for cost control and efficiency. 4. Performance context is limited without specific project details, but the scale implies substantial infrastructure work. 5. Positioned within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, this contract represents a major federal expenditure. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $107M over approximately 5.5 years averages around $19.5M annually. Without specific project deliverables or comparable contracts for similar scope and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure means the government pays the contractor's actual costs plus a predetermined fee, which can sometimes lead to less incentive for cost savings compared to fixed-price contracts. Benchmarking against similar large-scale federal construction projects would be necessary for a more robust evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This typically leads to a wider pool of potential contractors and can foster competitive pricing. The number of bids received (30) is substantial and indicates strong market interest. A high number of bidders generally supports the notion that the competition effectively drove down prices and ensured a fair market value was achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, full and open competition generally translates to better value as multiple companies vie for the contract, driving down costs. The significant number of bidders suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently in securing this construction award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, potentially encompassing new builds, renovations, or infrastructure upgrades. The geographic impact is not specified but would be localized to the sites where construction takes place. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, project managers, engineers, and support staff employed by the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The long duration of the contract increases the risk of scope creep or unforeseen cost increases.
Lack of specific project details makes it difficult to assess performance risks and potential delays.
Absence of small business participation goals may limit opportunities for smaller, specialized construction firms.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
A large number of bids (30) suggests significant contractor interest and a competitive environment.
The contract's duration implies a sustained commitment to necessary infrastructure development.
The prime contractor, Gilbane Federal, has a known presence in federal contracting, suggesting experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the federal procurement landscape. This sector encompasses a wide range of construction activities for government facilities, including administrative buildings, barracks, research facilities, and more. Federal spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, or expand existing infrastructure, or to construct new facilities to meet evolving operational requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost and duration of similar large-scale federal construction projects awarded over the past decade.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not specifically set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no indication of mandatory small business subcontracting goals (st: ''). This suggests that the primary competition was open to all responsible sources, including large businesses. While this maximizes the pool of potential bidders, it may limit direct opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors on this specific award. However, the prime contractor, Gilbane Federal, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, depending on their own subcontracting plans and the nature of the work required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant contracting office within the Department of the Air Force. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure necessitates rigorous oversight of incurred costs to ensure reasonableness and allowability. Performance monitoring would likely involve regular progress reports, site inspections, and adherence to project milestones. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed project-specific oversight mechanisms and Inspector General (IG) involvement would depend on the specific nature and potential risks associated with the construction projects undertaken.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Architectural and Engineering Services

Risk Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type requires diligent cost oversight.
Long contract duration increases potential for scope creep and cost escalation.
Lack of specific project details hinders detailed risk assessment.
Absence of small business set-aside may limit broader economic impact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $107.3 million to GILBANE FEDERAL. MIGRATED DATA VALUE UNKNOWN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GILBANE FEDERAL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $107.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-21. End: 2014-12-30.

What specific types of construction projects were undertaken under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' (nd: 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction') with the Department of Defense (ag: 'Department of Defense'). However, the specific nature of the construction projects (e.g., new buildings, renovations, specific facility types like barracks, hangars, or administrative offices) is not detailed in the summary data. To understand the precise scope, one would need to consult the contract's statement of work (SOW) or task orders issued against this basic ordering agreement (BOA) or similar contract vehicle. These documents would outline the specific deliverables, locations, and technical requirements for the construction services provided.

How does the average annual value of this contract compare to similar large-scale federal construction projects?

This contract, valued at approximately $107 million over roughly 5.5 years, averages about $19.5 million per year. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale federal construction projects requires access to a database of comparable contracts, including their scope, duration, and total value. Factors such as geographic location, specific construction type (e.g., healthcare facility vs. administrative building), complexity, and prevailing market conditions significantly influence costs. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether $19.5 million annually represents a high, low, or average expenditure for projects of this scale and type within the federal sector.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this project?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, used here, carries inherent risks for the government. While it allows for flexibility in projects with uncertain scopes, it can reduce the contractor's incentive to control costs, as their profit (the fixed fee) is predetermined regardless of the final project cost. The government bears the risk of cost overruns beyond the estimated costs. Effective oversight is crucial to mitigate this risk, involving detailed review of all claimed costs, ensuring they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable according to contract terms. Without stringent monitoring, CPFF contracts can become more expensive than fixed-price alternatives.

What was the track record of Gilbane Federal on similar federal construction contracts prior to this award?

Gilbane Federal is a recognized entity in federal construction. While the provided data doesn't detail their specific performance on prior contracts, their continued engagement in federal projects suggests a history of successful execution. A comprehensive assessment would involve reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any past performance issues or disputes, and their experience with similar contract types (CPFF) and project scales. Their ability to win a competitive bid valued at over $100 million indicates they met the government's criteria for capability and reliability at the time of award.

How has federal spending in Commercial and Institutional Building Construction trended over the period this contract was active (2009-2014)?

The contract was active from April 21, 2009, to December 30, 2014. This period coincided with the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic stimulus efforts, which often included infrastructure spending. Federal spending in construction, including commercial and institutional buildings, can fluctuate based on economic conditions, military readiness needs, and government priorities. Analyzing historical federal procurement data from agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) or specific departments like Defense would reveal trends in this sector during those years. It's plausible that spending saw fluctuations, potentially increasing due to stimulus or decreasing due to budget constraints in later years.

Were there any specific performance issues or disputes reported during the life of this contract?

The provided summary data does not contain information regarding specific performance issues, disputes, or contract modifications during the active period of this contract (2009-2014). Such details are typically found in more granular contract management systems or official contract files. Without access to these records, it is impossible to determine if the contractor encountered significant challenges, if the government exercised any contractual remedies, or if the project experienced delays or cost overruns beyond the initial estimates. A thorough review would require accessing CPARS reports or contract modification logs.

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

Offers Received: 30

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc. (UEI: 022726165)

Address: 2730 SHADELANDS DR # 100, WALNUT CREEK, CA, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $107,343,542

Exercised Options: $107,343,542

Current Obligation: $107,343,542

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA890306D8513

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline