GSA awards $41.9K contract for building upgrades, highlighting construction sector activity

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,883 ($41.9K)

Contractor: Prime Contractors Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-06-30

Contract Duration: 88 days

Daily Burn Rate: $476/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: UPGRADE EVIDENCE RECEIPT & PROCESSING ROOM

Place of Performance

Location: POWDER SPRINGS, COBB County, GEORGIA, 30127

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $41,883.39 to PRIME CONTRACTORS INC for work described as: UPGRADE EVIDENCE RECEIPT & PROCESSING ROOM Key points: 1. Contract value represents a small investment within the broader federal construction portfolio. 2. Competition dynamics for this specific delivery order are not detailed, impacting price discovery assessment. 3. Fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 4. Short performance period indicates a focused scope of work. 5. Contractor's performance history and specific expertise are key to evaluating value. 6. Geographic focus on Georgia aligns with regional infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $41,883.39 is modest, making direct comparisons to larger federal construction projects difficult. Benchmarking per-unit costs for specific upgrade tasks would be necessary for a thorough value assessment. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost predictability, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the quality and efficiency of the work performed by PRIME CONTRACTORS INC.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which suggests a competitive process but with specific limitations. The exact reasons for excluding certain sources are not provided, making it difficult to fully assess the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not specified, limiting insight into how effectively market forces influenced pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a less competitive price than if all potential sources were considered. Taxpayers benefit from a structured procurement, but the potential for cost savings through broader competition is not fully realized.

Public Impact

Federal facilities in Georgia will benefit from upgraded evidence receipt and processing rooms. Improved infrastructure supports the operational efficiency of the General Services Administration (GSA). The project is located within the state of Georgia, potentially impacting local construction workforce. Enhancements to evidence processing areas can indirectly support law enforcement and judicial functions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed competition metrics hinders assessment of optimal taxpayer value.
The specific nature of 'exclusion of sources' requires further clarification to ensure fairness.
Performance metrics for this specific delivery order are not publicly available.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract offers cost certainty.
Short duration suggests efficient project execution.
Contract awarded to a prime contractor implies established business relationship and potential for streamlined management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220), a significant segment of the federal contracting landscape. Federal spending in construction often focuses on maintaining and upgrading existing facilities, as well as new builds. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar facility upgrade projects within GSA or other agencies would provide further context on its market positioning.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not available for this contract. The absence of specific small business considerations suggests that this contract was not specifically targeted towards small business participation, and its impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor engages small businesses for subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified work within the agreed price. Transparency is facilitated by public contract databases, though detailed performance data may be internal.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building and Facilities Maintenance
Government Infrastructure Projects
Public Works Construction
GSA Facility Upgrades

Risk Flags

Limited competition details
Potential for unassessed value for money
Contractor performance history not publicly detailed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $41,883.39 to PRIME CONTRACTORS INC. UPGRADE EVIDENCE RECEIPT & PROCESSING ROOM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PRIME CONTRACTORS INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $41,883.39.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-06-30.

What is the track record of PRIME CONTRACTORS INC. with the federal government, particularly with GSA?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess PRIME CONTRACTORS INC.'s track record. Key indicators would include the number of previous federal contracts awarded, their total value, performance ratings (if available), and any history of contract modifications, disputes, or terminations. Understanding their past performance on similar construction or renovation projects, especially for agencies like GSA, would provide crucial context for evaluating their capability and reliability on this current contract. Without specific historical data, it is difficult to gauge their experience level and likelihood of successful project completion.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar federal construction projects for facility upgrades?

Direct price comparison is challenging without detailed project specifications and scope of work for comparable contracts. However, the contract value of $41,883.39 for upgrading evidence receipt and processing rooms suggests a relatively small-scale renovation. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify federal contracts with similar objectives (e.g., room renovations, security enhancements, specialized facility upgrades) and normalize for factors like geographic location, labor costs, and specific materials used. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the 'value for money' depends on the efficiency and quality of the delivered upgrades relative to the price paid.

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

Primary risks include potential cost overruns if the scope is underestimated (though mitigated by firm fixed-price), delays in performance due to unforeseen site conditions or contractor performance issues, and quality defects in the construction work. Mitigation strategies typically involve clear contract specifications, defined performance standards, and oversight from the contracting officer's representative. The short performance period (88 days) reduces the window for significant delays. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition phase could also represent a risk if it limited the pool of highly qualified contractors, potentially impacting quality or price.

How effective is the GSA's Public Buildings Service in managing and overseeing construction contracts of this nature?

The GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for managing a vast portfolio of federal buildings and infrastructure. Their effectiveness in overseeing construction contracts like this one is generally assessed through project completion rates, adherence to budget and schedule, and facility lifecycle management. PBS utilizes various oversight mechanisms, including project managers, quality assurance specialists, and contract administration processes. While specific performance data for individual contracts is often internal, GSA's overall mission success in providing federal workspace implies a functional, albeit complex, oversight system. Challenges can arise with resource allocation and the sheer volume of projects.

What is the historical spending pattern for facility upgrades within the General Services Administration?

Historical spending patterns for facility upgrades within the GSA typically show consistent investment in maintaining and modernizing its extensive real estate portfolio. This spending fluctuates based on agency priorities, infrastructure condition assessments, and available appropriations. GSA often allocates significant funds towards energy efficiency improvements, security enhancements, and space optimization projects. Analyzing multi-year spending data for GSA's Public Buildings Service, specifically for renovation and repair categories, would reveal trends in investment levels and the types of facility upgrades most frequently undertaken. This specific $41.9K contract represents a very small fraction of that overall spending.

What does the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method imply for this contract?

The 'exclusion of sources' designation indicates that while the procurement was intended to be competitive, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded from participating. This is typically done under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only a limited number of sources possess the required specialized capabilities, or in cases of urgent and compelling needs where a full and open competition is not feasible. Without further details on the justification for exclusion, it's difficult to ascertain the precise impact on competition. It suggests that the GSA identified specific contractors deemed capable, but potentially limited the breadth of market engagement.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: EQ4P1SBD-26-0003

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3406 FLORENCE CIR, POWDER SPRINGS, GA, 30127

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,883

Exercised Options: $41,883

Current Obligation: $41,883

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47PE1925D0020

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline