DHS awards $18.2M for electrical system upgrades at Area A Power, completed in 2012

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,187,730 ($18.2M)

Contractor: Chappy Corporation, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2008-09-29

End Date: 2012-12-14

Contract Duration: 1,537 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AREA A POWER. THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GENERATOR BUILDING, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR NEW GENERATORS. THE CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, SITE WORK, SITE AND BUILDING ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, HVAC, PLUMBING, FUEL DISTRIBUTION AND FIRE PROTECTION DISCIPLINES.

Place of Performance

Location: MOUNT WEATHER, CLARKE County, VIRGINIA, 20135

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $18.2 million to CHAPPY CORPORATION, THE for work described as: AREA A POWER. THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GENERATOR BUILDING, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR NEW GENERATORS. THE CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, BUILDI… Key points: 1. Project involved significant construction for electrical distribution, generator facilities, and associated systems. 2. The contract was awarded using full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. The definitive contract type indicates a fixed scope of work with a set price. 4. The project duration of 1537 days points to a complex and lengthy construction undertaking. 5. The work was performed in Virginia, with the Department of Homeland Security as the awarding agency. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor did it involve small business subcontracting.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $18.2 million for a comprehensive electrical site distribution system upgrade, including a new generator building and four generators, appears substantial. Benchmarking this cost against similar large-scale federal infrastructure projects would be necessary for a definitive value assessment. Given the project's scope and duration, the final cost should be evaluated against initial estimates and any change orders to determine if it represented good value for money. Without specific cost breakdowns by discipline (electrical, HVAC, plumbing, etc.) or comparison to industry standards for similar construction, a precise value-for-money judgment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 6 bidders (no) suggests a competitive environment for this significant construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The fact that multiple companies vied for this contract implies that the scope and value were attractive enough to draw significant interest from the construction industry.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive pricing structure, potentially saving taxpayer dollars compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. The active bidding process ensures that the government received proposals from various firms, allowing for selection of the most cost-effective and technically capable option.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the facilities and personnel at Area A Power, which will receive a modernized and reliable electrical infrastructure. The services delivered include the construction of a new primary electrical site distribution system, a generator building, and the installation of four new generators. The geographic impact is localized to the Area A Power facility in Virginia. The project would have implications for the construction workforce, requiring skilled labor for electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and general construction trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The extended duration of 1537 days (over 4 years) could indicate potential for cost overruns or delays, requiring careful monitoring.
The lack of specific cost breakdowns makes it challenging to assess the value-for-money for individual components of the project.
The contract was a definitive contract, which, while providing price certainty, might limit flexibility if unforeseen issues arose requiring scope adjustments.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with 6 bidders, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded fair pricing.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs for power reliability at a key federal site.
The use of a Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope was well-defined.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically related to power and communication infrastructure. The market for federal construction projects, particularly those involving critical infrastructure upgrades for agencies like Homeland Security, is substantial. Such projects often require specialized expertise in electrical systems, civil engineering, and building construction. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal facility construction or renovation contracts, particularly those focused on utility systems and power generation.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside (ss: false) and there is no indication of small business subcontracting (sb: false). This suggests that the prime contract was awarded to a large business, and there were no specific requirements or opportunities for small businesses to participate in this particular contract, either as the prime contractor or as subcontractors. This could mean that the project's scale or specialized nature was deemed unsuitable for small business participation, or that such provisions were not prioritized in the procurement strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Homeland Security, likely through its contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the Firm Fixed Price definitive contract, with performance milestones and final delivery being key checkpoints. 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 Construction
Critical Infrastructure Modernization
Department of Homeland Security Facilities Management
Electrical System Upgrades
Generator Installation Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to long project duration.
Need for detailed post-completion performance review.
Lack of specific cost breakdowns for value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $18.2 million to CHAPPY CORPORATION, THE. AREA A POWER. THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GENERATOR BUILDING, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR NEW GENERATORS. THE CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, SITE WORK, SITE AND BUILDING ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, HVAC, PLUMBING, FUEL DISTRIBUTION AND FIRE PROTECTION DISCIPLINES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHAPPY CORPORATION, THE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Office of Procurement Operations).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-29. End: 2012-12-14.

What was the track record of Chappy Corporation with the Department of Homeland Security prior to this award?

Reviewing the contract history for Chappy Corporation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prior to September 29, 2008, would be crucial. This involves examining past performance on similar projects, including their size, complexity, and adherence to schedule and budget. A history of successful project completion, particularly in large-scale construction and electrical infrastructure, would indicate a lower performance risk. Conversely, a record of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues on previous DHS contracts might raise concerns about their capacity to execute the Area A Power project effectively. Without specific prior contract data, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record with DHS.

How does the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost for this project?

The provided data shows the final award amount of $18,187,729.61. To assess value, this figure needs to be compared against the initial estimated cost or the baseline cost established at the time of contract award. If the final cost significantly exceeded the initial estimate, it would warrant an investigation into the reasons, such as scope changes, unforeseen site conditions, or contractor inefficiencies. Conversely, if the final cost was at or below the estimate, it suggests effective cost management. The duration of the contract (1537 days) also implies a potential for cost escalation, making the comparison between initial and final costs particularly important for taxpayer value.

What were the specific risks identified during the procurement process, and how were they mitigated?

The procurement documentation for this contract would typically outline identified risks, which could include technical challenges in integrating new systems, potential for site disruptions, material availability issues, or contractor performance uncertainties. Mitigation strategies might involve detailed technical specifications, phased construction schedules, robust quality assurance plans, performance bonds, and clear communication protocols. The use of a Firm Fixed Price contract itself acts as a risk mitigation tool by transferring cost overrun risk to the contractor, provided the scope is well-defined. The number of bidders (6) suggests that potential bidders assessed the risks and found the project feasible.

How effective was the completed electrical system in meeting the power needs of Area A Power post-2012?

Assessing the effectiveness of the completed electrical system requires post-completion performance data and user feedback from the Department of Homeland Security. Key metrics would include system reliability, uptime, capacity to meet peak loads, and energy efficiency improvements. Anecdotal evidence or formal performance reviews from the facility's operators would provide insight into whether the new system successfully addressed the original requirements and improved operational resilience. Without access to this post-implementation data, the long-term effectiveness remains an assumption based on the successful completion of the construction.

What is the historical spending trend for power and communication line construction by DHS?

To understand the historical spending trend for power and communication line construction by DHS, one would need to analyze contract awards data over several fiscal years. This analysis should focus on contracts categorized under NAICS code 237130 (Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction) or similar relevant codes awarded by DHS. Examining the total dollar amounts, number of contracts, and average contract values over time would reveal patterns. This context helps determine if the $18.2 million award for Area A Power represents a typical investment, an outlier, or part of an increasing/decreasing trend in DHS's spending on such infrastructure.

Were there any significant change orders or contract modifications issued during the project's lifecycle?

The provided data does not detail contract modifications or change orders. For a definitive analysis of the project's financial trajectory and management, reviewing the contract's modification history is essential. Significant change orders could indicate unforeseen complexities, scope creep, or issues with the initial planning and design. Each modification would need to be assessed for its justification, cost impact, and effect on the project timeline. Understanding these changes is critical to evaluating whether the final cost accurately reflects the delivered scope and whether the project remained within reasonable budgetary adjustments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Utility System Construction › Power and Communication Line and Related Structures 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: HSHQDC-08-R-00070

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 90 SPENCER AVE, CHELSEA, MA, 02150

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,187,730

Exercised Options: $18,187,730

Current Obligation: $18,187,730

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline