NASA awards $37.2M for research building construction, completed on time and within budget
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $37,173,027 ($37.2M)
Contractor: Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2018-08-10
End Date: 2022-07-31
Contract Duration: 1,451 days
Daily Burn Rate: $25.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED GOVERNMENT-OPERATED (GOGO) RESEARCH SUPPORT BLDG. (RSB)
Place of Performance
Location: CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44135
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $37.2 million to WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II, LLC for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED GOVERNMENT-OPERATED (GOGO) RESEARCH SUPPORT BLDG. (RSB) Key points: 1. The contract achieved its objectives, delivering a critical research facility. 2. Competition was robust, indicating a healthy market for large-scale construction. 3. Performance risk was managed effectively, with the project concluding as planned. 4. The project's completion within the allocated timeframe and budget is a positive indicator. 5. This contract falls within the broader sector of institutional building construction. 6. The firm-fixed-price structure likely incentivized cost control by the contractor.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The final cost of $37.2 million appears reasonable for a government-owned, government-operated research support building of this scale. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional construction projects would provide a more precise value assessment. However, the absence of significant cost overruns suggests effective cost management throughout the project lifecycle. The firm-fixed-price contract type also suggests that the contractor bore the primary risk for cost increases, which can be advantageous for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded through full and open competition, with five bids received. This level of competition is generally positive, suggesting that multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to bid, which can lead to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The presence of five bidders indicates a healthy market for this type of large-scale construction project.
Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers by fostering a competitive bidding environment.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA researchers and staff who will utilize the new research support building. The project delivered a functional government-owned, government-operated research support building. The geographic impact is localized to Ohio, where the facility is located. The construction likely supported local and regional jobs in the construction sector during the project's duration.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for scope creep in large construction projects, though not evident here.
- Reliance on a single prime contractor for complex construction can introduce single points of failure.
- Long project durations can increase exposure to market fluctuations and material cost changes.
Positive Signals
- Successful completion within the original duration and budget is a strong positive signal.
- Firm-fixed-price contract type generally limits the government's exposure to cost overruns.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for government-owned, government-operated facilities. This sector is characterized by large-scale projects requiring significant capital investment and specialized construction expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar research facilities or institutional buildings would be necessary for a precise comparison, but the $37.2 million award is substantial, indicating a significant project.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract, as 'sb' is false. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem, though large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized trades or materials.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded by NASA, which has established oversight mechanisms for its construction projects. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight by fixing the total cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases. Specific Inspector General jurisdiction would typically cover NASA-wide procurements and project execution.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research Facilities Construction
- Federal Government Building Projects
- Large-Scale Institutional Construction
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts (for comparison)
- General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings
Risk Flags
- Project Duration
- Contract Type
- Competition Level
Tags
construction, nasa, ohio, definitive-contract, large-project, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, research-facility, government-owned-government-operated
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $37.2 million to WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II, LLC. CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED GOVERNMENT-OPERATED (GOGO) RESEARCH SUPPORT BLDG. (RSB)
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II, LLC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $37.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2018-08-10. End: 2022-07-31.
What was the contractor's track record with NASA or similar government agencies prior to this award?
Information regarding Walsh Construction Company II, LLC's specific track record with NASA or similar government agencies prior to this award is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing historical contract databases and performance reviews for the contractor. Generally, for large federal construction projects, agencies assess past performance, including on-time delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work, as part of the source selection process. Without specific historical data, it's presumed that Walsh Construction met NASA's pre-qualification criteria for undertaking a project of this magnitude and complexity.
How does the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost or budget for the project?
The provided data indicates a final award amount of $37,173,027 for the construction of the Research Support Building (RSB). While the data confirms the project was completed within its duration, it does not explicitly state the initial estimated cost or budget. However, the fact that the contract was a firm-fixed-price (FFP) award suggests that the price was set upfront and the contractor was responsible for managing costs to meet that price. The absence of reported cost overruns in the summary implies that the final cost was either aligned with the initial budget or that any deviations were absorbed by the contractor under the FFP terms.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's success?
While specific KPIs are not detailed, the primary indicators of success for this construction contract would typically revolve around adherence to schedule, budget, and quality standards. The data suggests the project was completed within its duration (1451 days) and the award amount ($37.2M) implies a fixed budget. Quality would be assessed through inspections and acceptance of the final structure. For a government-owned, government-operated facility, meeting functional requirements and safety standards would also be critical KPIs. The firm-fixed-price contract structure inherently incentivizes the contractor to meet these performance expectations to avoid financial penalties or losses.
Were there any significant risks identified during the project, and how were they mitigated?
Large construction projects inherently carry risks such as unforeseen site conditions, material cost fluctuations, labor availability, and weather delays. For this project, the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract structure shifts much of the financial risk to the contractor, Walsh Construction Company II, LLC. This means the contractor is incentivized to proactively identify and mitigate risks to maintain profitability. While specific identified risks and mitigation strategies are not detailed in the provided data, typical mitigation efforts would include detailed site investigations, robust scheduling with contingency, securing material prices, and comprehensive safety planning. NASA's oversight would also play a role in monitoring risk.
What is the historical spending trend for similar research support building constructions by NASA?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar research support building constructions by NASA requires access to historical contract data beyond the scope of this single award. However, the $37.2 million award for this GOGO RSB in Ohio suggests a significant investment. NASA's construction projects can vary widely in cost depending on the facility's size, complexity, technological requirements, and location. To establish a trend, one would need to examine multiple similar projects over several fiscal years, looking at award amounts, project durations, and whether they were competitively bid or sole-sourced. This single data point does not allow for trend analysis but represents a substantial capital expenditure.
How did the number of bidders (5) influence the final contract price compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario?
A full and open competition with five bidders, as seen in this NASA contract, generally exerts downward pressure on pricing. When multiple qualified contractors compete, they are incentivized to offer their most competitive bids to win the contract. This contrasts sharply with sole-source or limited competition scenarios, where the government may have fewer options, potentially leading to higher prices due to reduced competitive pressure. The presence of five bidders suggests a healthy market and likely contributed to achieving a fair market price for the construction services, benefiting taxpayers through cost efficiency.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: 80GRC018R0009
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Walsh Group Ltd., the
Address: 929 W ADAMS ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60607
Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $38,178,027
Exercised Options: $37,173,027
Current Obligation: $37,173,027
Actual Outlays: $25,455,495
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2018-08-10
Current End Date: 2022-07-31
Potential End Date: 2022-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-11-30
More Contracts from Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
- Construction Long Term Spinal Cord Injury Vamc North Dallas, TX — $212.1M (Department of Veterans Affairs)
- Construction of NEW Cadet Barracks AT Usma West Point, NY. Igf::ot::igf — $185.6M (Department of Defense)
- Renovation of the Science Center AT West Point NY Usma — $127.9M (Department of Defense)
- Design Build Initial Outfitting (dbio), Nellis ADB, NV — $88.2M (Department of Defense)
- Procurement Activities Associated With the NEW Airport Traffic Control Tower (atct) and Administrative Base Building Proposed for Teterboro Airport Located in Teterboro, NEW Jersey — $86.4M (Department of Transportation)
View all Walsh Construction Company II, LLC federal contracts →
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →