GSA's $119.6M construction contract with DICK CORPORATION awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $119,581,272 ($119.6M)

Contractor: Dick Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2005-12-09

End Date: 2011-12-30

Contract Duration: 2,212 days

Daily Burn Rate: $54.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Construction

Place of Performance

Location: MIAMI GARDENS, MIAMI-DADE County, FLORIDA, 33055

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $119.6 million to DICK CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for commercial and institutional building construction, indicating a focus on infrastructure development. 2. The fixed-price incentive contract type suggests a shared risk between the government and contractor to control costs. 3. Awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA), a key agency for federal building management. 4. The contract duration of 2212 days (approx. 6 years) points to a significant, long-term project. 5. The contract was awarded in 2005, providing a historical data point for construction spending. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary competition was not specifically targeted at small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $119.6 million construction contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable contract data. However, the fixed-price incentive (FPI) structure implies an effort to manage costs by aligning contractor incentives with government objectives. The duration of over six years suggests a substantial project scope, which, if executed efficiently, could represent reasonable value. Further analysis would require understanding the specific deliverables and market conditions at the time of award.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With two bids received, the level of competition appears limited for a contract of this magnitude. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery, a low number of bidders could suggest potential barriers to entry or a niche market for the specific construction services required.

Taxpayer Impact: A low number of bidders in a full and open competition may lead to less competitive pricing than if more firms had participated, potentially resulting in higher costs for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring new or renovated facilities managed by GSA. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, contributing to federal infrastructure. The contract's geographic impact is specified as Florida (ST: FL, SN: FLORIDA). Workforce implications include job creation in the construction sector within Florida.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders) for a large contract may indicate potential for higher costs.
Fixed-price incentive contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully.
The long duration (over 6 years) increases the risk of scope creep or unforeseen market changes impacting cost-effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, adhering to principles of broad market access.
The fixed-price incentive structure aims to control costs and align contractor performance with government goals.
The contract is managed by the General Services Administration, a reputable agency for federal property management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220). The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services for its vast portfolio of buildings and infrastructure. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on infrastructure needs, agency priorities, and budget allocations. Comparable benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal building projects awarded by GSA or other agencies like the Department of Defense or Veterans Affairs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (SB: false). While the primary award was not a set-aside, the prime contractor, DICK CORPORATION, may engage small businesses as subcontractors. However, without specific subcontracting plans or data, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. The lack of a set-aside suggests that the competition was geared towards larger firms capable of undertaking significant construction projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), likely through its Public Buildings Service (PBS). GSA has established procurement regulations and contract administration processes to ensure compliance and performance. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. The Inspector General for GSA would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Infrastructure Projects
Fixed-Price Incentive Contracts
Construction Services

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Long Contract Duration
Potential for Cost Overruns (FPI)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $119.6 million to DICK CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DICK CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $119.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-12-09. End: 2011-12-30.

What was the track record of DICK CORPORATION with the federal government prior to or during this contract?

Analyzing DICK CORPORATION's federal contracting history prior to and during the 2005-2011 period would provide insight into their performance and reliability. Federal procurement data (like FPDS) would reveal other contracts awarded to the company, their value, agencies involved, and performance ratings if available. A history of successful project completion, timely delivery, and adherence to budget on previous federal contracts would suggest a lower risk profile for this specific award. Conversely, a history of disputes, contract terminations, or poor performance ratings would raise concerns about the value and execution of this $119.6 million contract.

How does the per-square-foot construction cost of this project compare to similar GSA projects in Florida during the same period?

To assess the value for money, a detailed cost analysis comparing this contract to similar GSA construction projects in Florida between 2005 and 2011 is necessary. This would involve obtaining project-specific data such as the total square footage constructed and the final contract price. Benchmarking against projects of similar scope (e.g., office buildings, institutional facilities) and scale would reveal if DICK CORPORATION's pricing was competitive. Factors like regional labor costs, material prices, and specific project complexities (e.g., historical preservation, specialized systems) would need to be considered to ensure a fair comparison. Without this granular data, it's difficult to definitively state if the $119.6 million represented excellent or questionable value.

What were the specific performance incentives and penalties outlined in the Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract?

The Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract structure implies that the final price was subject to adjustment based on the contractor's performance relative to target cost and schedule goals. Understanding the specific incentive clauses is crucial for assessing value. For example, were there bonuses for early completion or cost savings below a certain threshold? Conversely, were there penalties for delays or cost overruns beyond agreed limits? The effectiveness of the FPI structure in controlling costs and ensuring timely delivery depends heavily on the clarity and fairness of these incentive and penalty mechanisms, as well as the government's diligence in monitoring performance against them.

What was the total federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction (NAICS 236220) during the contract period (2005-2011)?

Examining the total federal spending on NAICS code 236220 between 2005 and 2011 provides context for the $119.6 million awarded to DICK CORPORATION. This broader spending trend indicates the overall government investment in this sector. If overall federal construction spending was increasing during this period, this contract would represent a portion of a larger trend. Conversely, if spending was declining, this contract might stand out. Understanding this macro-level spending helps in evaluating the significance of this single contract within the government's broader construction portfolio and resource allocation strategies.

Were there any significant cost variances or disputes associated with this contract during its 6-year duration?

Investigating potential cost variances or disputes is essential for a complete risk assessment. The FPI contract type allows for price adjustments, and monitoring these adjustments over the 2212-day duration is key. Significant upward adjustments to the initial target price could indicate cost control issues or unforeseen challenges. Similarly, any formal disputes, claims, or litigation filed by or against DICK CORPORATION would signal potential problems with contract execution, performance, or financial management. Accessing contract modification history and any available dispute resolution records would shed light on the actual cost performance and contractor-client relationship.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DCK Worldwide, LLC (UEI: 826879426)

Address: 1900 STATE ROUTE 51, LARGE, PA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $120,651,057

Exercised Options: $119,580,972

Current Obligation: $119,581,272

Timeline