GSA awards $110M+ for Austin Courthouse design, with 6 bidders competing for firm-fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $110,394,165 ($110.4M)

Contractor: Charles N. White Construction Company

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2006-09-29

End Date: 2015-05-31

Contract Duration: 3,166 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CMC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE IN AUSTIN, TX.

Place of Performance

Location: AUSTIN, TRAVIS County, TEXAS, 78746

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $110.4 million to CHARLES N. WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: CMC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE IN AUSTIN, TX. Key points: 1. Contract value exceeds $110 million, indicating a significant investment in federal infrastructure. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing final expenses. 3. Six bidders participated, suggesting a reasonably competitive environment for this type of specialized construction service. 4. The contract duration spans nearly 9 years, encompassing design and likely initial construction phases. 5. The project is situated in Texas, a key state for federal building projects. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of design services for a federal courthouse is complex due to unique project requirements and scale. The total award of over $110 million for design phase services appears substantial, but without comparable projects for similar federal courthouses, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns during the design phase, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. However, the long duration of the contract (nearly 9 years) could introduce risks related to inflation and changing construction needs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with six bidders submitting proposals. This level of competition is generally positive, as it allows for a wider pool of potential contractors to participate and can drive more competitive pricing. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the market for such specialized design services is accessible and that the General Services Administration (GSA) was able to attract a reasonable number of qualified firms. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract further indicates that the government sought to establish a clear cost ceiling from the outset.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition with six bidders is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at a competitive price and reduces the risk of contractor collusion or inflated costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the citizens of Austin, Texas, who will gain a new federal courthouse. The contract delivers essential design services for a critical piece of federal infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Austin, Texas, but the facility will serve federal judicial functions. The project will likely involve architects, engineers, and construction management professionals, impacting the local and regional A&E workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (nearly 9 years) could lead to cost escalations or scope creep if not managed meticulously.
The complexity of designing a federal courthouse may present unforeseen challenges impacting schedule and budget.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended design and potential construction oversight period requires robust GSA oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government regarding the design phase.
Full and open competition with six bidders suggests a healthy market and competitive pricing.
The contract is for a critical piece of federal infrastructure, ensuring long-term public benefit.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on the design phase of a major public facility. The federal government, through agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA), is a significant investor in construction and related services. The market for large-scale public building design and construction is characterized by specialized firms, stringent regulatory requirements, and often lengthy project timelines. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other federal courthouse projects or large municipal building designs, where costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on size, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting goals. Given the scale and specialized nature of designing a federal courthouse, it is likely that the prime contractor is a large firm. However, opportunities for small businesses may exist within the subcontracting chain, particularly for specialized design disciplines or support services, though this is not explicitly detailed in the award information.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. The GSA has established procurement regulations, contract administration processes, and quality assurance procedures to monitor contractor performance. Transparency is generally maintained through public contract databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction Projects
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Design-Build Construction Services
Large-Scale Institutional Building Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Potential for cost escalation due to inflation over extended period
Complexity of federal courthouse design requirements

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $110.4 million to CHARLES N. WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. CMC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES FOR THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE IN AUSTIN, TX.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHARLES N. WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $110.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-29. End: 2015-05-31.

What is the track record of Charles N. White Construction Company with the federal government, particularly on large-scale public building projects?

Information regarding Charles N. White Construction Company's specific track record with the federal government, especially on projects of similar scale and complexity to designing a federal courthouse, is not readily available in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported disputes or successes on previous federal awards. Federal procurement databases and contractor performance systems (like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) would typically hold this information. Without access to these detailed records, it's difficult to definitively assess their suitability and past performance on comparable projects.

How does the $110 million award for design services compare to the total construction cost of similar federal courthouses?

The provided data only includes the award amount for the design phase services ($110,394,164.55). It does not include the total estimated construction cost for the new U.S. Courthouse in Austin, TX. Typically, design services represent a fraction of the overall construction budget, often ranging from 5% to 15% depending on the project's complexity and delivery method (e.g., design-bid-build vs. design-build). To compare this award, one would need to identify the total projected construction cost for this specific courthouse or find data on the design service percentages for recently completed federal courthouses of similar size and scope. Without the total construction cost, a direct comparison of the design service value is not feasible.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a project spanning nearly nine years?

While a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is generally advantageous for cost control, a nearly nine-year duration introduces specific risks. Inflationary pressures over such a long period can significantly erode the value of the fixed price if not adequately accounted for in the initial pricing. Changes in material costs, labor rates, and economic conditions can make the original price less viable for the contractor, potentially leading to requests for equitable adjustments or disputes. Furthermore, the contractor bears the risk of unforeseen technical challenges or scope creep, which, if not managed through clear contract modifications, could strain the relationship or lead to performance issues. The government's risk lies in potentially overpaying if market conditions change favorably or underpaying if the contractor struggles to absorb escalating costs without compromising quality.

What specific performance metrics or milestones are likely being tracked for this courthouse design contract?

For a federal courthouse design contract of this magnitude and duration, performance metrics would likely focus on adherence to schedule, quality of design deliverables, compliance with building codes and security standards, and effective cost management within the design budget. Key milestones might include completion of schematic design, design development, construction documents, and final approvals from relevant stakeholders (e.g., judiciary, GSA). Performance would also be assessed based on the contractor's responsiveness to feedback, coordination among design disciplines (architectural, structural, MEP), and the successful integration of sustainable design principles. Regular progress reports, design reviews, and potentially independent cost estimates would be used to track performance against these metrics.

How has federal spending on courthouse construction and design evolved over the past decade, and where does this project fit?

Federal spending on courthouse construction and design has historically fluctuated based on infrastructure needs, budget appropriations, and judicial branch requirements. Over the past decade, there has been a consistent need for modernization, expansion, and replacement of aging federal courthouses. Agencies like the GSA manage significant capital construction programs. This $110 million design services contract for the Austin Courthouse represents a substantial investment in a single facility, indicative of the scale of projects undertaken by the GSA. While specific aggregate spending figures for courthouse design services are not provided, this award suggests that significant funds continue to be allocated to ensure adequate and secure facilities for the federal judiciary.

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: GS-07P-06-UE-C-0059

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Charles N White Construction Company (UEI: 057655102)

Address: 2705 BEE CAVES RD, AUSTIN, TX, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $110,663,769

Exercised Options: $110,394,165

Current Obligation: $110,394,165

Timeline