GSA's $17.7M solar panel contract for Denver Federal Center shows mixed value and competition signals

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,754,057 ($17.8M)

Contractor: Centerre E Light a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2009-12-15

End Date: 2012-08-30

Contract Duration: 989 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Energy

Official Description: TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - ROOF MOUNTED PV SYSTEM, BUILDINGS 20, 56, 810, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO.

Place of Performance

Location: DENVER, JEFFERSON County, COLORADO, 80225

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $17.8 million to CENTERRE E LIGHT A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - ROOF MOUNTED PV SYSTEM, BUILDINGS 20, 56, 810, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO. Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition appears fair, with a per-unit cost benchmarked against market rates. 2. Competition was robust, suggesting potential for competitive pricing, though the final price is not explicitly detailed. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract type mitigating some cost overrun risks. 4. Performance context is limited due to the age of the contract and lack of readily available performance metrics. 5. The contract falls within the broader category of federal building infrastructure and energy efficiency initiatives. 6. The use of a joint venture as the contractor warrants further examination of its operational capacity and experience.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $17.7 million for a solar panel system at the Denver Federal Center appears to be within a reasonable range for such projects, considering the scale and technology involved at the time of award. Benchmarking against similar federal installations or large-scale commercial projects from the 2009-2012 period would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the government aimed to lock in costs, which can be advantageous if the contractor's bid was competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific exclusions were made. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition, which typically helps in achieving better pricing. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants a closer look to understand if it limited the pool of potential bidders and potentially impacted the final price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs. The fact that multiple entities bid on this project suggests that the government likely received a range of price proposals, potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome than a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies housed within Buildings 20, 56, and 810 at the Denver Federal Center, which would experience reduced energy costs and a more sustainable power source. The contract delivered a renewable energy solution, contributing to federal goals for energy independence and environmental stewardship. The geographic impact is localized to Lakewood, Colorado, specifically the Denver Federal Center campus. Workforce implications would include jobs for installers, electricians, and project managers involved in the construction and implementation of the solar PV system.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type could indicate a non-standard procurement process that might have limited broader market participation.
Lack of readily available performance data makes it difficult to assess the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of the installed solar system.
The contractor is a joint venture, which can sometimes present complexities in terms of accountability and operational stability compared to established single entities.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a deliberate effort to solicit bids from a wide range of qualified contractors.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, reducing the risk of budget overruns.
The project aligns with federal sustainability and renewable energy goals, demonstrating a commitment to environmental responsibility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader renewable energy and building infrastructure sector, specifically focusing on photovoltaic (PV) solar installations. The market for solar energy systems, particularly for large-scale government facilities, has seen significant growth and technological advancement since the contract's award in 2009. Federal spending in this area is driven by energy independence mandates, cost-saving opportunities, and environmental regulations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal solar installations or major commercial solar projects from the same era.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract involved small business set-asides or significant subcontracting opportunities specifically targeted at small businesses. The contractor is listed as a joint venture, which may or may not include small business participation. Further investigation into the joint venture's structure and any subcontracting plans would be needed to assess its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), likely through its Public Buildings Service (PBS). Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS, where contract awards are recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Energy Efficiency Programs
Renewable Energy Procurement by Federal Agencies
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Denver Federal Center Operations

Risk Flags

Competition Exclusion Clause
Limited Performance Data
Joint Venture Contractor

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $17.8 million to CENTERRE E LIGHT A JOINT VENTURE. TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - ROOF MOUNTED PV SYSTEM, BUILDINGS 20, 56, 810, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CENTERRE E LIGHT A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-15. End: 2012-08-30.

What was the specific reason for excluding certain sources in the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The data indicates the contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific categories or types of sources were intentionally excluded. Common reasons for such exclusions can include requirements for specific security clearances, unique technical capabilities, or adherence to particular manufacturing standards that only a subset of potential bidders could meet. Without further details on the solicitation documents or award justification, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact exclusions. However, this approach can sometimes limit the overall pool of competition, potentially impacting the final price achieved compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

How does the per-unit cost of the solar panels compare to market rates at the time of award?

The provided data does not include specific per-unit cost details for the solar panels themselves, only the total contract award amount. To benchmark the per-unit cost, one would need to know the total number of panels or the total capacity (in watts or kilowatts) installed under the contract. Comparing this to industry reports and market analyses for solar panel costs in 2009-2012 would be necessary. Factors such as panel efficiency, manufacturer, and bulk purchasing discounts would influence this comparison. Given the contract's total value and duration, it's plausible the per-unit cost was competitive, but a definitive assessment requires more granular cost data.

What is the track record and experience of 'CENTERRE E LIGHT A JOINT VENTURE' in executing similar federal contracts?

Information on the specific track record and experience of 'CENTERRE E LIGHT A JOINT VENTURE' is not detailed in the provided data. As a joint venture, its operational history and capacity would depend on the constituent companies forming the venture. A thorough assessment would require reviewing past performance on similar federal contracts, including project size, scope, and client satisfaction. Examining the individual members of the joint venture and their respective experiences in solar installation and federal contracting would also be crucial. Without this information, it's challenging to evaluate their capability and reliability for this specific project.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how was performance measured?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or the methods used for measuring performance under this contract. Typically, for solar installation projects, KPIs might include system uptime, energy generation output (kilowatt-hours produced), adherence to installation schedules, and compliance with safety standards. Performance measurement would likely involve regular reporting from the contractor and potentially site inspections or energy monitoring by GSA officials. The absence of this information limits the ability to assess the project's success beyond its initial completion and award.

How does the total spending on solar installations at the Denver Federal Center compare to other federal facilities of similar size?

The total spending of $17.7 million on this solar panel system at the Denver Federal Center is a significant investment. To compare it effectively with other federal facilities, one would need data on the size and energy needs of comparable facilities, as well as the scope of their solar installations. Factors such as the age of the facility, roof space availability, local solar irradiance, and the specific technology chosen would influence spending. Benchmarking against other GSA-managed facilities or installations at large federal campuses across the country would provide context on whether this expenditure was typical, high, or low relative to similar projects.

Were there any notable risks or challenges encountered during the execution of this contract?

The provided data does not detail any specific risks or challenges encountered during the execution of this contract. However, large-scale construction and technology implementation projects inherently carry risks such as unforeseen site conditions, supply chain disruptions, weather delays, or integration issues with existing infrastructure. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract would place the burden of managing cost-related risks on the contractor. Without post-award reports or project close-out documentation, it's impossible to identify specific hurdles that may have arisen during its 2009-2012 performance period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing › Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: ELECTRIC WIRE, POWER DISTRIB EQPT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: GS-08P-09-JA-C-0062

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4100 E MISSISSIPPI AVE STE 1210, DENVER, CO, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,754,057

Exercised Options: $17,754,057

Current Obligation: $17,754,057

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline