GSA awards $2.4M contract for VAMC Nashville facility replacement study

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,407,709 ($2.4M)

Contractor: THE Craddock Group, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2024-12-09

End Date: 2026-01-01

Contract Duration: 388 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE VAMC NASHVILLE TN

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $2.4 million to THE CRADDOCK GROUP, LLC for work described as: PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE VAMC NASHVILLE TN Key points: 1. Contract focuses on strategic planning for a major healthcare facility. 2. Competition level indicates a potentially competitive bidding environment. 3. Fixed-price contract type helps manage cost certainty. 4. Contract duration of nearly two years suggests a comprehensive study. 5. Consulting services are critical for informed infrastructure decisions. 6. The awardee has experience in management consulting services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $2.4 million for a planning and feasibility study appears reasonable given the scope of determining replacement options for a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). This type of study often involves extensive analysis, site assessments, and stakeholder consultations. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facility planning studies would provide a more precise value assessment, but the amount is within expected ranges for such complex undertakings. The firm-fixed-price structure offers cost predictability for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging bidders to offer competitive pricing and innovative solutions to win the contract. The number of bidders is not specified, but the method of competition implies a robust selection process.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best value through competitive pricing and a wider range of potential solutions.

Public Impact

Veterans in the Nashville area will benefit from improved healthcare infrastructure planning. The study will inform decisions on the future of the VAMC Nashville facility. The outcome could lead to modernized healthcare services for veterans. The study supports the strategic goals of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Potential for job creation in construction and healthcare sectors if replacement is approved.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if study requirements are not clearly defined.
Risk of delays if stakeholder input is not managed effectively.
Ensuring the study fully addresses long-term operational and maintenance costs.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract mitigates cost overruns.
Full and open competition suggests a thorough vetting of potential solutions.
Awardee's experience in management consulting is a positive signal.
Clear objective to determine replacement options for a critical facility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. The market for such services is large and competitive, with many firms capable of conducting feasibility studies for major infrastructure projects. The General Services Administration (GSA) frequently procures these services to support various federal agencies. The value is modest for a study of this nature, reflecting its specific focus on planning rather than design or construction.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is not detailed, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses for specialized support.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service, which awarded the contract. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver defined study outcomes. Transparency is generally maintained through federal contract databases, though the detailed findings of the study itself may have limited public release until decisions are made.

Related Government Programs

Veterans Affairs Medical Center Modernization Projects
Federal Facility Planning and Feasibility Studies
General Services Administration Real Estate Services
Healthcare Infrastructure Investment

Risk Flags

Potential for study findings to be influenced by external political or budgetary factors.
Risk of inadequate consideration of long-term operational and maintenance costs in replacement options.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $2.4 million to THE CRADDOCK GROUP, LLC. PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE VAMC NASHVILLE TN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE CRADDOCK GROUP, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-12-09. End: 2026-01-01.

What is the track record of The Craddock Group, LLC in performing similar federal planning and feasibility studies?

The Craddock Group, LLC, is a provider of management and consulting services. While specific details on their past performance for federal facility replacement studies are not publicly detailed in this award notice, their categorization under NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) suggests a broad capability in providing advisory services to organizations. Federal agencies often rely on past performance evaluations and contractor capabilities assessments during the procurement process. To fully assess their track record for this specific type of project, a review of their contract history, client references, and any performance ratings available through federal databases like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be necessary. Their ability to secure this GSA contract under full and open competition indicates they met the government's requirements for this service.

How does the $2.4 million cost compare to similar VAMC facility planning studies?

Benchmarking the $2.4 million cost for this planning and feasibility study requires comparison with similar projects, which can be challenging due to variations in scope, facility size, complexity, and geographic location. However, studies for major healthcare facilities, especially those involving potential replacement or significant renovation, can range from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars. Factors influencing cost include the depth of analysis required (e.g., environmental impact, seismic assessments, operational efficiency studies), the number of alternative options to be evaluated, and the level of detail in the final recommendations. Given that this study is for a VAMC, a critical healthcare provider, and aims to determine replacement options, the investment appears proportionate to the potential long-term benefits of ensuring adequate veteran healthcare infrastructure. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state if it's high or low, but it falls within a plausible range for such a significant undertaking.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risks for this contract include potential scope creep, where the study's objectives expand beyond the initial agreement, leading to cost overruns or delays. Another risk is the quality and comprehensiveness of the final recommendations; if the study is flawed, it could lead to poor long-term infrastructure decisions. Delays in stakeholder engagement or data collection could also impact the timeline. Mitigation strategies are embedded in the contract structure: the firm-fixed-price nature incentivizes the contractor to manage scope and costs effectively. Clear statement of work and performance metrics will define deliverables and quality standards. The full and open competition process likely selected a contractor with demonstrated experience in managing such studies, reducing the risk of inadequate performance. Regular progress reviews and defined reporting requirements will also help monitor progress and address issues proactively.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this study?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money for studies with well-defined scopes, such as this planning and feasibility study. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the primary risk for cost overruns, providing a strong incentive to complete the work within the agreed-upon budget. This structure offers the government cost certainty, as the total price is fixed regardless of the contractor's actual costs. For a study focused on determining options, where the scope of work is relatively predictable (e.g., analysis, reporting), FFP helps prevent unexpected cost increases. Value for money is further enhanced by the competitive bidding process, which should drive down the initial price. The government's role is to clearly define the requirements and monitor performance to ensure the contractor delivers the agreed-upon scope and quality.

What are the historical spending patterns for VAMC facility planning and modernization by the GSA or VA?

Historical spending patterns for VAMC facility planning and modernization by the GSA or VA are substantial, reflecting the ongoing need to maintain and upgrade healthcare infrastructure for veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) consistently allocates significant portions of its budget towards capital investments, including new construction, major renovations, and facility modernization. GSA, as the primary provider of federal real estate, also plays a role in managing and overseeing such projects. Annual reports from the VA's Office of Asset Enterprise Management (AEM) and budget justifications submitted to Congress detail these expenditures. While specific figures fluctuate year-to-year based on project pipelines and funding appropriations, billions are typically invested over multi-year periods. This contract represents a small but critical component of that larger investment strategy, focusing on the crucial initial planning phase.

What are the implications of this contract being awarded by GSA versus directly by the VA?

The implications of this contract being awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA) rather than directly by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primarily relate to procurement processes and expertise. GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS) specializes in managing federal real estate, including planning, design, construction, and leasing of government facilities. By leveraging GSA's expertise, the VA can benefit from established procurement vehicles, standardized processes, and specialized knowledge in facility management and acquisition. This can potentially lead to more efficient procurement and better oversight. The VA retains ownership and ultimate decision-making authority over its facilities, but GSA acts as the contracting and management agent for this specific planning study, ensuring it aligns with federal real estate best practices and GSA's own asset management strategies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 47PA0324Q0009

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3101 WILSON BLVD STE 500, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,407,709

Exercised Options: $2,407,709

Current Obligation: $2,407,709

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $920,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QRAA18D007K

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline