GSA's $10.4M contract for Jackson MS construction services awarded to Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates LLP

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,400,495 ($10.4M)

Contractor: Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates LLP

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2003-06-15

End Date: 2012-12-30

Contract Duration: 3,486 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 21

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AE DESIGN FOR JACKSON MS CH

Place of Performance

Location: JACKSON, HINDS County, MISSISSIPPI, 39201

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $10.4 million to HARDY HOLZMAN PFEIFFER ASSOCIATES LLP for work described as: AE DESIGN FOR JACKSON MS CH Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of nearly 10 years indicates a long-term need. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Services provided under NAICS code 532412 relate to equipment rental and leasing. 6. The contract was awarded by the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $10.4 million over approximately 9.6 years (3486 days) suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.08 million. Without specific details on the services rendered or comparable projects, it's challenging to provide a precise benchmark. However, for large-scale construction or renovation projects managed by GSA, this level of spending can be considered within a typical range, especially considering the fixed-price nature which often includes contractor profit and overhead.

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 a bid. The presence of 21 bids suggests a robust level of interest and a competitive environment. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition as it typically drives down prices and encourages a wider pool of contractors to vie for government work, potentially leading to better value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring facilities management and construction services within Mississippi. The contract supports the maintenance, renovation, or construction of public buildings. Geographic impact is centered on Mississippi, where the services are to be performed. The contract likely supports a workforce involved in construction, project management, and related trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to potential cost overruns if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
Reliance on a single contractor for nearly a decade may limit flexibility in adopting new technologies or approaches.
Fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to contractors cutting corners if not adequately monitored.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a strong initial vetting of potential contractors.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The long duration allows for consistent service delivery and relationship building.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction and facilities management sector, specifically related to equipment rental and leasing for construction purposes (NAICS 532412). The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major player in federal real estate and construction, managing a vast portfolio of government buildings. Spending in this area is consistent with GSA's mission to provide workspace and related services to federal agencies. Benchmarks for similar large-scale construction contracts can vary widely based on project scope, location, and specific requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were indirectly involved or if subcontracting plans were part of the bid.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. Mechanisms likely include contract performance reviews, site inspections, and financial audits. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Buildings Fund
GSA Public Buildings Service Operations
Construction Services Contracts
Government Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or scope creep.
Lack of specific detail on equipment leased limits granular value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $10.4 million to HARDY HOLZMAN PFEIFFER ASSOCIATES LLP. AE DESIGN FOR JACKSON MS CH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARDY HOLZMAN PFEIFFER ASSOCIATES LLP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-06-15. End: 2012-12-30.

What specific types of construction machinery and equipment were leased or rented under this contract?

The provided data identifies the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 532412, which pertains to 'Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing.' However, the specific types of machinery and equipment are not detailed in the summary data. To ascertain this, one would need to review the contract's statement of work (SOW) or detailed award documentation. This information is crucial for understanding the precise nature of the services and assessing their necessity and value.

How does the per-day cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar equipment rental services?

The contract value is $10,400,495.30 over 3486 days, resulting in an average daily cost of approximately $2,983.51. Benchmarking this figure requires detailed knowledge of the specific types of machinery and equipment rented, their condition, duration of rental, and geographic location. Without this granular detail, a direct comparison to industry benchmarks is difficult. However, for large-scale construction projects managed by federal agencies, this daily rate could be considered within a reasonable range, assuming it covers a significant scope of equipment needs. A thorough analysis would involve comparing rates for specific equipment categories (e.g., heavy machinery, specialized tools) in the Mississippi region during the contract period.

What was the track record of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates LLP with GSA or similar federal contracts prior to this award?

Assessing the track record of Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates LLP requires accessing historical contract data. Prior to this $10.4 million award, it would be beneficial to examine their performance on previous GSA contracts or similar federal projects. Key indicators to investigate include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any past performance issues or disputes. A review of their contract history could reveal a pattern of successful project completion or highlight potential risks associated with their performance. This information is typically available through federal procurement databases.

What specific public buildings or facilities in Mississippi were serviced under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded to AE DESIGN FOR JACKSON MS CH, suggesting a focus on facilities in Mississippi, potentially including Jackson. However, the specific public buildings or facilities serviced are not detailed in the summary. To identify these, one would need to consult the contract's statement of work or related GSA documentation. Understanding the specific locations and types of facilities (e.g., courthouses, office buildings, administrative centers) is essential for evaluating the contract's geographic impact and operational scope.

Were there any significant changes in scope or cost adjustments throughout the contract's nearly 10-year duration?

The contract duration is 3486 days, spanning from June 15, 2003, to December 30, 2012. Given this extended period, it is plausible that modifications or change orders may have occurred. Assessing whether there were significant changes in scope or cost adjustments would require examining the contract's modification history. Such changes could indicate evolving project needs, unforeseen challenges, or potential scope creep. Analyzing these modifications is crucial for understanding the contract's evolution and its final total cost relative to the initial award.

How did the 21 bids received compare in terms of price and proposed technical solutions?

The fact that 21 bids were received under full and open competition suggests a highly competitive environment. However, the summary data does not provide details on the pricing or technical solutions proposed by each bidder. A comprehensive analysis would involve comparing the bid prices against the awarded price to understand the range of offers. Furthermore, evaluating the technical proposals would reveal how different contractors planned to meet the contract's requirements. This comparative analysis is key to confirming that the selected contractor offered the best value, considering both cost and technical merit.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing › Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Offers Received: 21

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 902 BROADWAY 19TH FL, NEW YORK, NY, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,400,495

Exercised Options: $10,400,495

Current Obligation: $10,400,495

Timeline