GSA awards $3.6M elevator modernization contract to Armstrong Elevator Company for Gerald Ford Federal Building

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,637,824 ($3.6M)

Contractor: Armstrong Elevator Company

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2025-06-12

End Date: 2027-09-19

Contract Duration: 829 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT AT THE GERALD FORD FEDERAL BUILDING, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL 3 NEW PASSENGER ELEVATORS AND 1 NEW SERVICE ELEVATOR.

Place of Performance

Location: GRAND RAPIDS, KENT County, MICHIGAN, 49503

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3.6 million to ARMSTRONG ELEVATOR COMPANY for work described as: ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT AT THE GERALD FORD FEDERAL BUILDING, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL 3 NEW PASSENGER ELEVATORS AND 1 NEW SERVICE ELEVATOR. Key points: 1. The contract value of $3.6 million for elevator modernization appears reasonable given the scope of installing four new elevators. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process that should drive fair pricing. 3. The contract duration of 829 days (approximately 2.3 years) is substantial, indicating a complex project. 4. The project is positioned within the building equipment contractors sector, a common area for federal facility maintenance. 5. The fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for budget certainty. 6. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements warrants further investigation into potential impacts.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $3.6 million for the modernization of four elevators (three passenger, one service) at the Gerald Ford Federal Building seems within a reasonable range for such projects. Benchmarking against similar federal elevator modernization projects, costs can vary significantly based on building complexity, elevator type, and location. However, the firm fixed-price nature of this contract provides cost certainty for the government. Without specific details on the elevator models and technical requirements, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the scope appears commensurate with the award amount.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which is a specific type of full and open competition. It implies that the agency initially considered other sources but ultimately decided to open the competition broadly. The data indicates four bids were received. A competitive process with multiple bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition ensures that taxpayers benefit from a market-driven price, as multiple contractors vied for the work, driving down the final award cost.

Public Impact

Federal employees and visitors to the Gerald Ford Federal Building in Grand Rapids, Michigan, will benefit from improved accessibility and safety with the new elevators. The project delivers essential infrastructure upgrades to a key federal facility, ensuring its continued operational capacity. The geographic impact is localized to Grand Rapids, Michigan, supporting the maintenance of federal assets in that region. The contract supports jobs within the building equipment contracting sector, likely benefiting skilled trades and project management professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for schedule delays given the multi-year duration and complexity of elevator installations.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, although the fixed-price contract mitigates this for the government.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical building system upgrade.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Contract awarded to a known entity in the elevator industry (Armstrong Elevator Company).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction and facilities maintenance sector, specifically focusing on building equipment. The market for elevator installation and modernization is competitive, with numerous specialized contractors. Federal spending in this area is driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure in government buildings across the country. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and number of elevators, as well as the complexity of the installation site.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this procurement, and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and opportunities for small businesses may be limited to direct supply chain roles or potential future subcontracting if initiated by the prime contractor. Further review of the contract's subcontracting plan, if any, would be necessary to fully assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service, which is responsible for federal building management. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified elevators within the agreed-upon price and schedule. Transparency is generally maintained through federal procurement databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Modernization Projects
General Services Administration Facility Maintenance
Elevator Installation and Repair Services
Public Buildings Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule slippage
Risk of unforeseen site conditions
Contractor performance risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3.6 million to ARMSTRONG ELEVATOR COMPANY. ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT AT THE GERALD FORD FEDERAL BUILDING, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL 3 NEW PASSENGER ELEVATORS AND 1 NEW SERVICE ELEVATOR.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ARMSTRONG ELEVATOR COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-06-12. End: 2027-09-19.

What is the track record of Armstrong Elevator Company with the federal government?

Armstrong Elevator Company has a history of performing work for the federal government, as indicated by their receipt of this contract. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine their past performance evaluations on federal contracts, including any awards, disputes, or terminations. Data from federal procurement systems like SAM.gov or FPDS can provide insights into the number and types of contracts they have held, their performance ratings, and any past issues. A positive performance history suggests a lower risk for this current project, while a history of issues might warrant closer monitoring.

How does the $3.6 million cost compare to similar federal elevator modernization projects?

The $3.6 million cost for modernizing four elevators (three passenger, one service) at the Gerald Ford Federal Building needs to be benchmarked against similar federal projects. Costs for elevator modernization can vary widely based on factors such as the building's structural complexity, the type and capacity of elevators installed, the extent of customization required, and prevailing labor rates in the specific geographic location. Projects involving fewer elevators or simpler installations might cost less, while complex retrofits in historic buildings or those requiring significant structural modifications could cost more. Without specific details on the elevator specifications and site conditions, a precise comparison is difficult, but the awarded amount appears to be within a plausible range for a project of this scope.

What are the primary risks associated with this elevator modernization project?

The primary risks associated with this elevator modernization project include potential schedule delays due to the complexity of elevator installation and integration within an existing federal building. Unforeseen site conditions, such as structural issues or the presence of hazardous materials, could also lead to delays and potentially impact costs if not adequately addressed in the contract. Furthermore, ensuring the reliability and long-term performance of the new elevators is critical. The firm fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, but performance issues or significant delays could still pose challenges for the government in terms of building usability and operational continuity.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method for this type of contract?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method, while a form of full and open competition, warrants careful consideration. It implies that the agency may have initially considered specific sources or methods but ultimately opened the competition broadly. For a project like elevator modernization, which involves specialized contractors, this approach can be effective if it genuinely leads to a wide range of qualified bidders. The receipt of four bids suggests a reasonable level of competition. However, the 'exclusion of sources' aspect should be transparently justified to ensure it did not unduly limit competition and potentially prevent other capable contractors from participating, thereby impacting price discovery.

What are the historical spending patterns for elevator modernization by the General Services Administration?

The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major federal entity responsible for managing and maintaining a vast portfolio of federal buildings. Consequently, GSA's historical spending on elevator modernization and repair is substantial. Analyzing GSA's spending patterns reveals a consistent need for infrastructure upgrades across its inventory. This spending is influenced by the age of federal buildings, federal mandates for accessibility (e.g., ADA compliance), and the overall condition of existing elevator systems. Trends may show an increasing focus on energy-efficient and technologically advanced elevator solutions in recent years. Understanding these patterns helps contextualize individual contract awards like the one for the Gerald Ford Federal Building.

What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type for this project?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type for this elevator modernization project has significant implications for both the government and the contractor. For the government (GSA), an FFP contract offers the highest degree of cost certainty, as the price is set and generally not subject to adjustment unless the contract scope changes. This minimizes the risk of cost overruns for the agency. For Armstrong Elevator Company, the contractor, it means they assume the primary risk for any cost increases incurred during the project. They must accurately estimate all costs, including labor, materials, and overhead, and build in contingencies. If their costs exceed the fixed price, their profit margin will be reduced, or they may incur a loss. Conversely, if they manage costs effectively, their profit could be higher.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Building Equipment Contractors › Other Building Equipment Contractors

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 47PF0025R0027

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 9225 ULMERTON RD STE 318, LARGO, FL, 33771

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,637,824

Exercised Options: $3,637,824

Current Obligation: $3,637,824

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline