GSA's $14.18M Bishop Whipple Building Project: Architectural Services Awarded to Hammel Green & Abrahamson Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,182,510 ($14.2M)

Contractor: Hammel Green & Abrahamson Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2009-06-30

End Date: 2014-11-28

Contract Duration: 1,977 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::47 4543::TAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BUILDING IN FT. SNELLING, MN. ARRA::YES::ARRA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT SNELLING, HENNEPIN County, MINNESOTA, 55111

State: Minnesota Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $14.2 million to HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC for work described as: TAS::47 4543::TAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BUILDING IN FT. SNELLING, MN. ARRA::YES::ARRA Key points: 1. The project involved architectural services for a federal building replacement, with a significant contract value. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about price discovery and potential value. 3. The contract was awarded under ARRA, indicating a focus on economic stimulus during its period. 4. The sector is primarily architectural services within the broader construction and facilities management domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $14.18M for architectural services is substantial. Without comparable contracts for similar federal building projects, assessing its value is difficult. The lack of competition further complicates a direct pricing assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This was a non-competitive delivery order, suggesting limited options for engaging multiple firms. This method of procurement may have restricted price discovery and potentially led to a higher cost than a fully competitive process.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of taxpayer funds for a non-competitive award warrants scrutiny to ensure the price paid was fair and reasonable.

Public Impact

Federal building infrastructure upgrades are crucial for government operations and employee safety. ARRA funding aimed to stimulate the economy, and this project likely contributed to job creation in the architectural and construction sectors. The long duration of the contract (over 5 years) suggests a complex and extensive project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for overpayment due to non-competitive award
Long contract duration

Positive Signals

Project addresses critical federal building infrastructure
Awarded under ARRA, potentially supporting economic stimulus

Sector Analysis

This project falls within the architectural services sector, a key component of the broader construction and facilities management industry. Spending benchmarks for similar large-scale federal building renovations are not readily available, but the value suggests a significant undertaking.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or prime contractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The non-competitive nature of this award raises questions about the oversight applied to ensure fair pricing and value for taxpayer money. A review of the justification for the sole-source award would be beneficial.

Related Government Programs

Architectural Services
General Services Administration Contracting
Public Buildings Service Programs

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Potential for inflated pricing
Lack of transparency in procurement
Long contract duration without clear performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $14.2 million to HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC. TAS::47 4543::TAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BUILDING IN FT. SNELLING, MN. ARRA::YES::ARRA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-30. End: 2014-11-28.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a non-competitive basis, and was it adequately documented?

The justification for a non-competitive award is critical for understanding why full and open competition was not pursued. Agencies must provide detailed documentation outlining the reasons, such as a lack of available qualified sources, urgent and compelling needs, or specific government requirements that only one source can meet. Without this documentation, it's difficult to assess if the non-competitive route was appropriate and if it resulted in fair pricing.

How does the final cost compare to initial estimates or benchmarks for similar architectural services on federal building projects?

Comparing the final cost of $14.18M to initial estimates or industry benchmarks for similar federal building architectural projects is essential for value assessment. Given the non-competitive nature, a thorough post-award review or comparison with projects procured through full and open competition would be necessary to determine if the government received fair market value.

What was the impact of the ARRA funding on the project's timeline and execution, and did it influence the procurement process?

ARRA funding was intended to accelerate economic recovery, often leading to expedited project timelines. Understanding if this urgency influenced the decision to use a non-competitive delivery order is important. While ARRA aimed for broad economic benefit, the specific procurement method here needs scrutiny to ensure it aligned with ARRA's goals while still achieving value for money.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Architectural Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 701 WASHINGTON AVE N, MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 55401

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,182,510

Exercised Options: $14,182,510

Current Obligation: $14,182,510

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS05P09GBD0022

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline