GSA's $10.3M modification to Jacobs Project Management Co. for building construction in California

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,326,147 ($10.3M)

Contractor: Jacobs Project Management CO

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2006-05-10

End Date: 2013-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,608 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ISSUE A DIRECTED CHANGE TO BE DEFINITIZED AT A LATER DATE.

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92101, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $10.3 million to JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ISSUE A DIRECTED CHANGE TO BE DEFINITIZED AT A LATER DATE. Key points: 1. Contract value increased by $10.3M, indicating potential scope expansion or unforeseen costs. 2. The modification was a directed change, suggesting urgency or a specific need not initially planned. 3. The contract has been active since 2006, with a significant extension to 2013. 4. The Public Buildings Service is the primary agency involved, focusing on federal building infrastructure. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which typically aims to control costs, but modifications can alter this. 7. The modification was issued under a 'directed change' clause, which may bypass standard competitive processes for the change itself.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The modification adds $10.3 million to the contract's value. Without knowing the original contract value or the specific services covered by this modification, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, a directed change of this magnitude warrants scrutiny to ensure it represents fair value and is not an indicator of poor initial planning or cost overruns. The firm fixed price nature of the base contract suggests an expectation of cost control, making this significant modification noteworthy.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The original contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. However, this specific modification was issued as a 'directed change,' which implies that the change itself was not subject to a new competitive solicitation. While the initial award was competitive, the mechanism for this modification bypasses further competition for the added scope or services.

Taxpayer Impact: While the initial award was competitive, the directed nature of this modification means taxpayers did not benefit from competitive pricing for the additional $10.3 million. This could potentially lead to higher costs than if the change had been competed.

Public Impact

Federal agencies occupying buildings managed under this contract benefit from continued construction and project management services. The services delivered are related to commercial and institutional building construction, likely involving renovations, new construction, or project oversight. The geographic impact is specified as California, suggesting the projects are located within the state. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, project managers, and support staff involved in these building projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Directed change mechanism bypasses competitive bidding for the modification amount.
Significant contract modification value raises questions about initial scope definition and cost estimation.
Long contract duration (2006-2013) may indicate evolving project needs or potential for scope creep.

Positive Signals

Original contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive initial award.
Firm Fixed Price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the base scope.
The contract is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), a primary federal agency for real estate and building management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant part of the broader construction industry. The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major player in federal construction and real estate management, overseeing a vast portfolio of government buildings. Spending in this sector for federal projects can be substantial, driven by infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and agency space requirements. Benchmarking this specific modification's value would require comparing it to similar directed changes or change orders on large-scale federal construction projects.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, the implications for small businesses would primarily be through potential subcontracting opportunities if Jacobs Project Management Co. engages them. Without further details on subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though larger federal contracts often create downstream opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its contracts, including project management reviews and financial controls. The Public Buildings Service, as the servicing agency, would be responsible for monitoring performance and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would likely apply to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract modification. Transparency would be enhanced by public contract databases, though the specifics of directed changes may have limited public detail.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
GSA Project Management Contracts
Public Buildings Service Contracts
Commercial Building Construction Services
Institutional Building Construction Services

Risk Flags

Directed Change
Potential for Cost Overruns
Lack of Competition for Modification
Extended Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $10.3 million to JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ISSUE A DIRECTED CHANGE TO BE DEFINITIZED AT A LATER DATE.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-05-10. End: 2013-06-30.

What specific services or scope changes does the $10.3 million modification cover?

The provided data states, 'THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ISSUE A DIRECTED CHANGE TO BE DEFINITIZED AT A LATER DATE.' This indicates that the modification is an administrative action to authorize a change in scope or direction, with the detailed justification and final pricing to be determined later. Without the full contract modification document, the precise services are unknown. However, given the NAICS code (236220 - Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) and the agency (GSA Public Buildings Service), the change likely pertains to construction, renovation, or project management services for federal buildings in California. The 'directed change' nature suggests an urgent or necessary alteration to the original plan.

What is the original contract value and how does the modification impact the total contract ceiling?

The provided data only shows the value of the modification ($10,326,146.57) and does not include the original contract value or the total contract ceiling. The modification represents an increase to the contract's authorized spending. To assess the full impact, one would need to know the original award amount and any previous modifications. A $10.3 million increase is substantial and could represent a significant percentage of the original contract value, depending on its initial size. This necessitates a review of the contract's history to understand the cumulative financial impact and ensure it remains within reasonable bounds for the project's scope.

What are the risks associated with issuing a 'directed change' for a significant amount?

Issuing a 'directed change' for $10.3 million carries several risks. Primarily, it bypasses the competitive bidding process for the modified scope, potentially leading to higher costs than if the work were solicited competitively. It can also indicate poor initial planning, scope definition, or unforeseen issues that have arisen, suggesting potential project management challenges. Furthermore, the 'to be definitized at a later date' clause introduces uncertainty regarding the final cost and scope, which can complicate budget management and oversight. There's also a risk of scope creep, where the directed change opens the door for further, less scrutinized additions to the contract.

How does the long duration of this contract (2006-2013) affect its overall value and performance assessment?

A contract duration spanning from 2006 to 2013 (7 years) suggests a long-term project, potentially involving multiple phases, ongoing services, or significant construction timelines. Such extended durations can offer benefits like continuity and relationship building but also introduce risks. Value assessment becomes more complex over time, as market rates, material costs, and project requirements can change significantly. Performance assessment needs to account for evolving conditions and ensure that the contractor continues to deliver value throughout the contract's life. The $10.3 million modification, occurring within this extended period, needs to be evaluated in the context of the project's overall lifecycle and original objectives.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific contract or similar GSA building construction contracts?

The provided data offers a snapshot of a single modification ($10.3M) to a contract awarded in 2006 and ending in 2013. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need access to the contract's full award history, including all modifications and task orders. This would reveal the total amount spent over its life, the frequency and value of previous changes, and how the current modification compares to past spending. For similar GSA building construction contracts, historical data would show typical contract values, durations, and the prevalence of modifications. This context is crucial for determining if the $10.3M modification represents an anomaly or a typical adjustment for a project of this scale and duration.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)

Address: 1100 N GLEBE RD STE 500, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,328,139

Exercised Options: $10,328,139

Current Obligation: $10,326,147

Timeline