Matthews Group Inc. awarded $30.5M for NOAA building upgrades, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,547,377 ($30.5M)

Contractor: THE Matthews Group Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2012-10-02

End Date: 2016-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,551 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL UPGRADE NOAA/NSOF

Place of Performance

Location: SUITLAND, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20746

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $30.5 million to THE MATTHEWS GROUP INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL UPGRADE NOAA/NSOF Key points: 1. The contract's duration of 1551 days suggests a complex project, but the final award value is substantial. 2. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, indicating a potentially competitive process. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the final value needs benchmarking. 4. The project location in Maryland (MD) is noted, but broader geographic impact is unclear. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests limited direct benefit to small businesses. 6. The contract's performance period ended in 2016, making current value assessment challenging without updated data.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $30.5 million for building upgrades appears significant. Without specific details on the scope of work (e.g., square footage, specific systems upgraded), it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, but the final value needs to be compared against initial estimates and industry standards for mechanical and electrical upgrades to assess value for money. The contract's age (ending in 2016) also limits the relevance of current market comparisons.

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.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were initially excluded before the final competition. The number of bidders is not specified, but this type of competition generally aims to achieve fair pricing through market forces. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the rationale and its potential impact on the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: While the competition was broad, the exclusion of sources could have potentially limited the number of competitive bids, possibly impacting the best possible price for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facilities, likely experiencing improved operational efficiency and reliability. Services delivered include mechanical and electrical upgrades to NOAA facilities, enhancing infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Maryland (MD), where the facilities are located. Workforce implications are likely related to construction and skilled trades involved in the upgrade process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the exclusion of sources in the competition process.
The significant award amount requires thorough benchmarking to ensure taxpayer value.
Limited information on the specific scope of work makes detailed performance assessment difficult.
The contract ended in 2016, making current relevance and cost comparisons challenging.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type helps in cost control.
Full and open competition, even with exclusions, suggests an effort to engage the market.
The contract addresses essential infrastructure upgrades for a federal agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on mechanical and electrical systems. This sector is crucial for maintaining and upgrading federal infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal building renovation projects, particularly those managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) for similar agencies. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by ongoing needs for modernization and energy efficiency in government facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears limited for this specific award, though larger prime contractors may engage small businesses for specialized work.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed price. Transparency is assessed through the availability of contract data, such as award amounts and contract types. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building and Facilities Modernization Programs
NOAA Infrastructure Investments
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Federal Construction and Renovation Projects

Risk Flags

Competition Exclusions
Lack of Detailed Scope of Work
Limited Performance Data Availability (Post-2016)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $30.5 million to THE MATTHEWS GROUP INC. IGF::OT::IGF MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL UPGRADE NOAA/NSOF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE MATTHEWS GROUP INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-10-02. End: 2016-12-31.

What was the specific scope of work for the mechanical and electrical upgrades performed under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for the mechanical and electrical upgrades. It is identified as 'IGF MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL UPGRADE NOAA/NSOF'. To understand the full value and impact, a detailed breakdown of the services rendered, such as HVAC system replacements, electrical rewiring, plumbing upgrades, or installation of new control systems, would be necessary. This information is typically found in the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS), which are not included in the provided summary data. Without this, it's challenging to assess if the $30.5 million award was commensurate with the work performed.

How does the $30.5 million award compare to similar NOAA facility upgrade projects managed by GSA?

Benchmarking this $30.5 million award against similar NOAA facility upgrade projects requires access to a broader dataset of federal contracts. The General Services Administration (GSA) manages numerous building projects, and comparing this specific contract's value would involve identifying projects with similar scope (mechanical/electrical upgrades), scale (facility size), and agency (NOAA). Given the contract's completion date of December 31, 2016, current market rates would need to be adjusted for inflation and market conditions if comparing to more recent projects. The provided data lacks sufficient detail on the project's specifics to perform a precise comparison, but the amount suggests a significant undertaking.

What were the primary risks identified for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not explicitly list the risks identified for this contract or the mitigation strategies employed. However, common risks in large construction and upgrade projects include cost overruns (mitigated by firm fixed-price), schedule delays (potentially impacted by the 1551-day duration), technical challenges with integrating new systems, and unforeseen site conditions. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' might indicate a risk related to ensuring adequate competition or specific technical requirements that limited the bidder pool. Further analysis of contract performance reports or GSA risk management documentation would be needed to identify specific risks and mitigation efforts.

What was the contractor's track record prior to and during this contract?

The contractor for this award is THE MATTHEWS GROUP INC. Information regarding their specific track record prior to or during this contract is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance on federal contracts, including client satisfaction, adherence to schedule and budget, and any history of disputes or corrective actions. Databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or agency-specific performance evaluation systems might contain such information. The fact that they were awarded a significant contract by GSA suggests they met certain pre-qualification criteria.

How did the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process potentially affect the final price and competition level?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were excluded from participating. The rationale for this exclusion is not provided. If the excluded sources were significant competitors or possessed unique capabilities, their absence could have reduced the overall competition, potentially leading to a higher final price than might have been achieved in a truly unrestricted competition. Conversely, if the exclusions were based on specific technical requirements or security clearances, they might have ensured that only qualified bidders participated, leading to a more focused and potentially efficient competition among capable firms.

What is the historical spending pattern for NOAA facility upgrades through GSA?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award ($30.5 million ending in 2016) and does not offer insight into historical spending patterns for NOAA facility upgrades through GSA. To analyze historical spending, one would need to examine contract data over multiple fiscal years, identifying all awards related to NOAA facility maintenance, repair, and upgrades, particularly those administered by GSA. This would involve looking at trends in award values, contract types, competition levels, and the types of services procured to understand the overall investment in NOAA's infrastructure over time.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: GS-11P-12-ZG-C-0103

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 18915 LINCOLN RD, PURCELLVILLE, VA, 20132

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,547,377

Exercised Options: $30,547,377

Current Obligation: $30,547,377

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline