Resurfacing 19 miles of park roads and rehabilitating a visitor center for $6.5M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,500,000 ($6.5M)

Contractor: GC Works Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2018-12-18

End Date: 2025-12-23

Contract Duration: 2,562 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PROJECT NP-GRSM 13(1), 14(2), 18(1) THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE RESURFACING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.33 MILES OF FIGHTING CREEK GAP ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 4.97, APPROXIMATELY 12.58 MILES OF LITTLE RIVER GORGE ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 12.58, APPROXIMATELY 1.53 MILES OF ELKMONT ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 1.53, INCLUDING PARKING AREAS AND PULL-OFFS, AND REHABILITATION OF SUGARLANDS VISITOR CENTER AREA. THE WORK INCLUDES ASPHALT PAVEMENT PATCHING, CRACK CLEANING AND SEALING, ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVERLAY, AN ULTRA-THIN BONDED WEARING COURSE, SHOULDER AND DITCH RECONDITIONING, PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK.

Place of Performance

Location: COSBY, SEVIER County, TENNESSEE, 37722

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $6.5 million to GC WORKS INC for work described as: PROJECT NP-GRSM 13(1), 14(2), 18(1) THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE RESURFACING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.33 MILES OF FIGHTING CREEK GAP ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 4.97, APPROXIMATELY 12.58 MILES OF LITTLE RIVER GORGE ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 12.58, APPROXIMATELY 1.53 MILES OF ELKMONT ROA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for extensive road resurfacing and visitor center rehabilitation within a national park. 2. Project scope includes patching, sealing, overlaying, and marking over 19 miles of park roads. 3. The rehabilitation of the Sugarlands Visitor Center area is also part of the contract. 4. Work is scheduled to span nearly seven years, indicating a phased or complex execution. 5. The contract type is a firm-fixed-price definitive contract, aiming to control costs. 6. The project is located in Tennessee, impacting local infrastructure and potentially tourism.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $6.5 million for resurfacing approximately 19 miles of roads and rehabilitating a visitor center appears reasonable given the scope of work. However, without specific benchmarks for park road construction and rehabilitation, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to manage cost overruns, but the long duration could introduce risks if material or labor costs escalate significantly. Comparing this to similar national park infrastructure projects would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is an unusual designation. Typically, 'full and open competition' implies a broad solicitation. The exclusion of sources suggests that while competition was sought, certain pre-qualified or specific types of contractors may have been targeted or other sources were intentionally excluded for reasons not immediately apparent from the data. With only 3 bidders, the level of competition was limited, which could potentially impact price discovery and lead to higher costs than a more broadly competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price that could have been achieved through a wider bidding process. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to ensure fairness and maximize taxpayer value.

Public Impact

Park visitors will benefit from improved road conditions and a potentially upgraded visitor center, enhancing their experience. The project directly impacts the infrastructure of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee. Improved road access could support increased tourism and recreational activities within the park. Local and regional construction workforce may see employment opportunities during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than if more bidders were involved.
The long contract duration (over 6 years) increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation or unforeseen site conditions.
The specific reasons for excluding certain sources in the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' are unclear and could indicate potential limitations on competition.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type helps to cap the government's financial exposure.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs within a high-traffic national park.
The contract is awarded to a single prime contractor, potentially streamlining project management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction sector, specifically focusing on infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation within a federal land management context. The market for such specialized construction services is often characterized by a mix of large, established firms and smaller, regional players. Federal agencies like the Federal Highway Administration frequently contract for roadwork in national parks and other federal lands. Benchmarks for similar projects would typically consider factors like per-mile costs, complexity of terrain, and specific rehabilitation techniques employed.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. This suggests that the primary competition was likely among larger, established construction firms. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in this significant infrastructure project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and potentially the National Park Service, given the project's location. The contract's firm-fixed-price nature provides a degree of cost control. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of progress and any modifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse, ensuring accountability.

Related Government Programs

National Park Service Road Maintenance
Federal Highway Administration Construction Projects
Appalachian Development Highway System
State Route Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Long Contract Duration
Unclear Source Exclusion Rationale

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $6.5 million to GC WORKS INC. PROJECT NP-GRSM 13(1), 14(2), 18(1) THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE RESURFACING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.33 MILES OF FIGHTING CREEK GAP ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 4.97, APPROXIMATELY 12.58 MILES OF LITTLE RIVER GORGE ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 12.58, APPROXIMATELY 1.53 MILES OF ELKMONT ROAD FROM MILEPOST 0.00 TO 1.53, INCLUDING PARKING AREAS AND PULL-OFFS, AND REHABILITATION OF SUGARLANDS VISITOR CENTER AREA. THE WORK INCLUDES ASPHALT PAVEMENT PATCHING, CRACK CLEANING AND SEALING, ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEME

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GC WORKS INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-12-18. End: 2025-12-23.

What is the track record of GC Works Inc. in completing similar large-scale road construction and rehabilitation projects for federal agencies?

GC Works Inc. is the prime contractor for this project. A thorough review of their past performance, particularly on contracts with the Department of Transportation or other federal land management agencies, would be necessary to assess their capability. This would involve examining project completion times, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Without specific data on GC Works Inc.'s prior federal contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record for this specific type of work. Further investigation into their project portfolio and client feedback would be required.

How does the $6.5 million cost compare to similar road resurfacing projects of comparable mileage and complexity in national parks or federal lands?

The total contract value is $6.5 million for approximately 19 miles of road resurfacing and visitor center rehabilitation. To benchmark this, we would need data on similar projects. Factors influencing cost include terrain difficulty, specific pavement treatments (e.g., overlay, ultra-thin bonded wearing course), the extent of base repair or shoulder work, and the scope of visitor center improvements. A preliminary assessment suggests the cost per mile might be in the range of $340,000 ($6.5M / 19 miles). This figure needs to be compared against industry standards for park road construction, which can vary widely. Projects in mountainous or remote areas typically incur higher costs than those in flatter, more accessible regions. Without specific comparable project data, it's challenging to definitively state if this represents excellent or questionable value.

What are the primary risks associated with the long duration (2562 days) of this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risks associated with a contract duration of over 2500 days (approximately 7 years) include potential cost escalation due to inflation in materials and labor, unforeseen environmental or geological conditions that may arise over an extended period, and the potential for project scope creep or changes in agency priorities. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract clauses addressing inflation adjustments (though less common in firm-fixed-price contracts), contingency planning for unforeseen conditions, and strong project management oversight to control scope. The firm-fixed-price nature of this contract theoretically shifts some cost risk to the contractor, but the long timeline could still lead to claims or disputes if conditions change significantly.

What is the expected impact of the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' on the final price and quality of the work?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' is somewhat contradictory. 'Full and Open Competition' implies a broad solicitation, while 'Exclusion of Sources' suggests specific limitations were placed on potential bidders. This could mean that only certain types of contractors were eligible, or that specific sources were deliberately excluded for reasons not detailed in the provided data. Limited competition, even if technically 'open' to a subset of firms, generally leads to less aggressive pricing compared to a truly broad competition. Taxpayers may therefore pay a premium. The impact on quality is less direct but could be influenced if the excluded sources represented highly competitive or specialized firms.

How does the scope of work, including specific treatments like 'ultra-thin bonded wearing course,' align with standard practices for national park road maintenance?

The inclusion of an 'ultra-thin bonded wearing course' suggests a modern approach to pavement preservation, aimed at extending the life of the road surface and protecting against moisture intrusion and wear. This type of treatment is often used on high-traffic or high-value roadways to provide a durable, cost-effective protective layer. Its application in a national park context aligns with efforts to maintain scenic roads while managing long-term infrastructure costs. Standard practices in national park road maintenance often balance durability, aesthetic integration with the natural environment, and cost-effectiveness. The specific choice of this treatment indicates a focus on advanced pavement engineering solutions.

What are the potential economic benefits for the local Tennessee economy resulting from this $6.5 million contract?

A $6.5 million contract for infrastructure work is expected to generate significant economic benefits for the local and regional economy in Tennessee. This includes direct job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers employed by the prime contractor and any subcontractors. Indirect benefits arise from increased demand for materials (asphalt, aggregate, etc.), equipment rental, and support services. Induced benefits occur as workers spend their wages in the local community on goods and services. The duration of the project suggests a sustained period of economic activity, potentially supporting local businesses and contributing to tax revenues.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction › Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: 693C7319B000001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1820 SW 3RD AVE, MIAMI, FL, 33129

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,500,000

Exercised Options: $6,500,000

Current Obligation: $6,500,000

Actual Outlays: $4,084,448

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline