Gainesville Courthouse Construction Contract Awarded to Brown Electric Inc. for $3.8M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,813,678 ($3.8M)

Contractor: Brown Electric Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2019-07-29

End Date: 2027-08-24

Contract Duration: 2,948 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: GAINESVILLE MOISTURE INTRUSION SYNDEY O MARCUS COURTHOUSE, GAINESVILLE, GA

Place of Performance

Location: GAINESVILLE, HALL County, GEORGIA, 30501

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3.8 million to BROWN ELECTRIC INC. for work described as: GAINESVILLE MOISTURE INTRUSION SYNDEY O MARCUS COURTHOUSE, GAINESVILLE, GA Key points: 1. Contract awarded for construction services at the Sydney O. Marcus Courthouse in Gainesville, GA. 2. The contract has a duration of 2948 days, extending through August 2027. 3. The contract type is a Firm Fixed Price, indicating a set cost for the work. 4. Brown Electric Inc. is the sole contractor for this project. 5. The project falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction NAICS code. 6. The General Services Administration (GSA) is the awarding agency. 7. The contract was not available for competition.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $3.8 million for courthouse construction appears within a reasonable range for a project of this scope and duration. However, without specific details on the scope of work, it is difficult to benchmark against similar projects. The firm fixed-price nature suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the costs involved, but it also shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per unit of construction against regional benchmarks for similar public building projects.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not available for competition, indicating a sole-source award. This means that only one contractor, Brown Electric Inc., was considered for this work. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative pricing and potentially secure a more favorable rate. It is important to understand the justification for this sole-source designation to ensure it was appropriate and that the public interest was served.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This necessitates a thorough review of the contractor's pricing to ensure it is fair and reasonable.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the General Services Administration and potentially the judicial system, as the project aims to improve courthouse facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction. The geographic impact is localized to Gainesville, Georgia. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for construction workers in the Gainesville area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
The extended duration of the contract (2948 days) could introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations and contractor performance over time.
The absence of a specified Product Service Code (PSC) makes it difficult to categorize the exact nature of the construction services and benchmark effectively.

Positive Signals

The contract is awarded to a single entity, potentially allowing for focused expertise and streamlined project management.
The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
The project is managed by the General Services Administration, an agency with significant experience in federal construction projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The market for federal building construction is often characterized by large contracts, stringent requirements, and a mix of competitive and sole-source awards. The GSA manages a vast portfolio of federal buildings, and projects like this are crucial for maintaining and upgrading government infrastructure. Benchmarking would involve comparing the contract value and scope against other GSA courthouse or federal building construction projects in similar geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business set-aside was not utilized for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This means the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral in terms of direct set-aside benefits, though Brown Electric Inc. may engage small businesses as subcontractors at its discretion.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA). As the awarding agency, GSA is responsible for monitoring contract performance, ensuring compliance with terms and conditions, and managing payments. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Accountability measures would include performance reviews and potential remedies for non-performance. While no specific Inspector General jurisdiction is mentioned, the GSA Office of Inspector General typically oversees GSA programs and contracts.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction
General Services Administration Building Projects
Commercial Building Construction Contracts
Firm Fixed Price Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award justification unclear
Unusually long contract duration
Lack of detailed scope of work in summary data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3.8 million to BROWN ELECTRIC INC.. GAINESVILLE MOISTURE INTRUSION SYNDEY O MARCUS COURTHOUSE, GAINESVILLE, GA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BROWN ELECTRIC INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-07-29. End: 2027-08-24.

What is the specific scope of work for the Gainesville Courthouse construction project?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for the Gainesville Courthouse construction project beyond its classification under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). This code encompasses new construction, additions, alterations, and repairs to commercial and institutional buildings. To understand the project fully, one would need to consult the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS). This document would outline the specific tasks, materials, timelines, and quality standards Brown Electric Inc. is expected to meet. Without this information, it's challenging to assess the value for money or compare it accurately to other construction projects.

What is the justification for this contract being awarded on a sole-source basis?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a sole-source award. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. To understand the justification, one would need to review the Justification and Approval (J&A) document associated with this contract. This document would detail the rationale behind the sole-source determination, outlining why competitive procedures were not feasible or appropriate. Without this J&A, the rationale for bypassing competition remains unclear, raising potential concerns about fairness and cost-effectiveness.

How does the contract duration of 2948 days compare to typical courthouse construction projects?

A contract duration of 2948 days, which is approximately 8 years, is exceptionally long for a typical courthouse construction project. Most new courthouse construction or major renovation projects are completed within 2-5 years. Such an extended duration might suggest a phased construction approach, a very large-scale project, or potentially a contract that includes long-term maintenance or operational components beyond initial construction. It raises questions about the project's phasing, the potential for scope creep, and the contractor's ability to maintain performance and cost control over such an extended period. It is unusual and warrants further investigation into the project's specific requirements and structure.

What is the track record of Brown Electric Inc. in performing federal construction contracts?

The provided data identifies Brown Electric Inc. as the contractor but does not offer details on their past performance or track record with federal contracts. To assess their reliability and experience, one would need to consult federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for their contract history, including past performance ratings, any past disputes, or awards. A review of their portfolio of completed federal projects, particularly those of similar size and complexity, would provide insight into their capabilities and ability to deliver on projects like the Gainesville Courthouse. Without this historical data, evaluating their suitability for this significant project is difficult.

Are there any comparable federal construction projects that can be used to benchmark the value of this contract?

Benchmarking the value of this $3.8 million contract for the Gainesville Courthouse is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work and the project's size (e.g., square footage, number of courtrooms). However, one could look for comparable projects awarded by the GSA or other federal agencies for similar types of buildings (courthouses, administrative offices) in the Southeast region. Analyzing the cost per square foot or cost per unit of construction (e.g., per courtroom) for those projects, while accounting for differences in project complexity and market conditions, would provide a basis for comparison. Given the sole-source nature and long duration, a thorough benchmark analysis is crucial to ensure fair pricing.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this duration?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially one with a long duration like 2948 days (approx. 8 years), carries specific risks. For the contractor, the primary risk is cost overrun; if material prices, labor costs, or unforeseen site conditions escalate significantly over the 8-year period, Brown Electric Inc. will bear those additional costs, potentially impacting their profitability or even leading to financial distress. For the government, the risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality to maintain profitability if costs rise unexpectedly, or that the fixed price may become uncompetitive if market rates decrease substantially over the contract's life. Effective oversight and clear performance metrics are essential to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: 47PE0219R0004

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1394 COUNTY HWY 283 S BLDG 7, SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL, 32459

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,813,678

Exercised Options: $3,813,678

Current Obligation: $3,813,678

Actual Outlays: $598,534

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline