GSA awards $93.7K for seismic evaluation study to Rutherford & Chekene under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $93,706 ($93.7K)

Contractor: Rutherford & Chekene

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2024-02-21

End Date: 2024-12-31

Contract Duration: 314 days

Daily Burn Rate: $298/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 911 SEISMIC EVALUATION STUDY

Place of Performance

Location: PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH County, OREGON, 97201

State: Oregon Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $93,706.25 to RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE for work described as: 911 SEISMIC EVALUATION STUDY Key points: 1. Contract value is relatively small, suggesting a focused scope for the seismic evaluation. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates a clear understanding of project costs upfront. 3. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate but broad solicitation. 4. The contract duration of 314 days allows ample time for a thorough evaluation. 5. Performance is expected in Oregon, indicating a specific geographic focus for the study. 6. The award is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a pre-existing agreement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $93,706.25 is modest, making direct comparisons to larger infrastructure projects difficult. However, for a specialized engineering study, this amount appears reasonable. The firm fixed-price structure suggests the government has secured a defined cost for the services, which is generally favorable. Benchmarking against similar seismic evaluation studies would provide more precise value-for-money insights, but the limited scope indicated by the dollar amount suggests efficient resource allocation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This indicates that while the competition was broad, there might have been specific criteria or pre-qualifications that excluded certain potential bidders. The exact number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' nature suggests multiple interested parties were considered, which generally promotes competitive pricing and a wider pool of expertise.

Taxpayer Impact: This competitive approach helps ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by driving down costs and encouraging the selection of the most qualified and cost-effective provider for the seismic evaluation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies or property owners within the specified geographic area (Oregon) who require seismic safety assessments for their facilities. The service delivered is a specialized engineering study focused on seismic evaluation, crucial for understanding structural integrity and potential risks. The geographic impact is concentrated in Oregon, where the study will be conducted. Workforce implications are minimal, likely involving a small team of specialized engineers from Rutherford & Chekene.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the exclusion criteria for 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' could mask potential limitations in the bidding pool.
The modest contract value might indicate a limited scope, potentially requiring follow-on contracts for comprehensive seismic resilience planning.

Positive Signals

The use of 'full and open competition' suggests a commitment to leveraging market capabilities and achieving competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The selection of a specialized engineering firm indicates access to relevant expertise for the seismic evaluation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330). This sector encompasses firms that provide specialized engineering expertise for various projects, including structural assessments and risk analysis. The market for seismic evaluation services is driven by building codes, seismic zone regulations, and the need for infrastructure resilience. The $93.7K award is a small component within the broader federal spending on engineering and architectural services, which often runs into billions annually for infrastructure and facility management.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was set aside for small businesses, nor is there information about subcontracting plans. Given the specialized nature of seismic engineering and the modest contract value, it's possible that larger firms or specialized divisions of larger firms were the primary bidders. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses had an opportunity to participate as prime contractors or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service. As a delivery order, it is likely managed under a broader IDIQ contract with established oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Accountability rests with the contracting officer and the performance evaluation of Rutherford & Chekene. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Buildings Fund
Public Buildings Service Capital Security Program
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
Risk of scope creep in specialized engineering studies.
Dependence on accurate historical data and site conditions for study validity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $93,706.25 to RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE. 911 SEISMIC EVALUATION STUDY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $93,706.25.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-02-21. End: 2024-12-31.

What is the track record of Rutherford & Chekene with the GSA and other federal agencies?

Rutherford & Chekene has a history of performing engineering services for government entities. While specific details on their GSA contract history require deeper database analysis, their selection for this seismic evaluation study suggests they possess the necessary qualifications and experience. Federal procurement data often shows patterns of successful contract performance, including on-time delivery and adherence to quality standards. A review of their past performance ratings and any past performance issues would provide a clearer picture of their reliability as a federal contractor. Their specialization in geotechnical and civil engineering, including seismic considerations, positions them as a capable provider for such studies.

How does the $93,706.25 contract value compare to similar seismic evaluation studies?

The $93,706.25 contract value is relatively modest for a comprehensive seismic evaluation, suggesting a focused scope, possibly for a single building or a specific component of a larger facility. Larger, multi-building, or in-depth seismic retrofitting studies can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This contract likely covers preliminary assessments, risk analysis, or specific technical evaluations rather than full-scale design and implementation. Benchmarking against similar 'delivery orders' for specialized engineering services within the GSA or other agencies would be necessary for a precise comparison. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests cost control was a priority.

What are the key risks associated with this seismic evaluation study contract?

Key risks include potential scope creep if the initial evaluation uncovers unforeseen complexities requiring more extensive analysis than initially budgeted. There's also a risk related to the accuracy and completeness of the data provided to the contractor, which could impact the study's findings. Schedule delays could occur due to site access issues, contractor performance, or the need for additional information. Finally, the interpretation of seismic data and the resulting recommendations carry inherent uncertainties, requiring careful review and validation by the government.

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

This method aims to balance broad market access with the need for specific qualifications. By excluding certain sources, the GSA might be targeting firms with proven expertise in seismic engineering, potentially reducing the risk of selecting unqualified bidders. However, the effectiveness hinges on the justification for exclusions; if too restrictive, it could limit competition and potentially increase costs. For specialized services like seismic evaluation, where specific certifications and experience are paramount, this approach can be effective in ensuring quality, provided the exclusion criteria are transparent and justifiable.

What is the historical spending pattern for seismic evaluation studies by the GSA?

Historical spending patterns for seismic evaluation studies by the GSA would likely show variability based on infrastructure needs, seismic zone activity, and federal funding allocations. The GSA manages a vast portfolio of federal buildings, many in seismically active regions, necessitating ongoing assessments and upgrades. Spending can fluctuate year-to-year, with spikes occurring after major seismic events or when significant capital improvement programs are initiated. Analyzing past contract awards for similar services would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and the types of firms frequently engaged for these specialized engineering tasks.

What are the potential long-term implications of this seismic evaluation for federal property management?

The long-term implications are significant for risk management and capital planning. A thorough seismic evaluation provides critical data for prioritizing retrofitting projects, informing budget requests for facility upgrades, and ensuring compliance with safety standards. It helps the GSA proactively address potential structural vulnerabilities, thereby protecting federal assets, ensuring continuity of government operations, and safeguarding occupants. The findings can influence future building designs and maintenance strategies, contributing to the overall resilience of the federal real estate portfolio against seismic hazards.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 101 MISSION ST STE 300, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94105

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $93,706

Exercised Options: $93,706

Current Obligation: $93,706

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47PB0123D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline