Department of the Navy awards $11.7M construction contract to John C. Grimberg Co., Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,702,275 ($11.7M)

Contractor: John C. Grimberg CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-08-31

End Date: 2008-03-18

Contract Duration: 565 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ACADEMIC PROGRAM CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20814

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.7 million to JOHN C. GRIMBERG CO., INC. for work described as: ACADEMIC PROGRAM CENTER Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is a firm fixed price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. The duration of the contract is 565 days, indicating a medium-term project. 4. The contract was awarded to a single contractor, John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. 5. The contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction category. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a component of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $11.7 million for building construction is a significant investment. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's challenging to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed to control costs upfront. The absence of detailed performance metrics or cost breakdowns makes a precise value-for-money assessment difficult at this stage. Further analysis would require understanding the specific construction project and its deliverables.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 7 bidders indicates a healthy level of interest and competition for this construction project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently, as contractors vied to offer the best value to secure the award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or renovations. The geographic impact is centered in Maryland (MD), where the construction work will take place. The contract will likely create or sustain jobs in the construction sector within Maryland.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during construction, despite the fixed-price nature.
Dependence on a single contractor for project completion could lead to delays if the contractor faces challenges.
Scope creep could become an issue if project requirements are not clearly defined and managed.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract helps manage budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Award to an established contractor may indicate a level of confidence in their ability to perform.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense consistently investing in infrastructure. Benchmarking this $11.7 million contract would involve comparing it to other similar-sized military or government building projects, considering factors like location, complexity, and specific construction types.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem. Future contracts of this nature should explore opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and project managers within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver according to specifications. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Projects
Federal Building Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly.
Risk of delays if contractor encounters unforeseen issues.
Need for clear performance metrics to ensure quality.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.7 million to JOHN C. GRIMBERG CO., INC.. ACADEMIC PROGRAM CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHN C. GRIMBERG CO., INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-08-31. End: 2008-03-18.

What is the specific scope of work for this $11.7 million construction contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' awarded to John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. by the Department of the Navy. However, the specific scope of work, such as whether it involves new construction, renovation, or specific types of facilities (e.g., barracks, offices, training centers), is not detailed in the summary data. Understanding the precise deliverables is crucial for assessing the contract's value and comparing it to similar projects. Without this detail, the analysis remains general.

How does the $11.7 million award compare to typical construction project costs for the Department of the Navy in Maryland?

Benchmarking the $11.7 million award requires access to a database of comparable Department of the Navy construction projects in Maryland, considering factors like project type, size, and complexity. General federal spending data suggests that building construction contracts can range widely, from smaller renovations to large-scale facility developments. This particular contract appears to be a mid-sized project within the context of major military infrastructure investments. A more precise comparison would necessitate analyzing historical contract awards for similar scope and location.

What is the track record of John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. with federal construction contracts?

The data shows John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. received this $11.7 million contract from the Department of the Navy. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on federal contracts, including project completion timeliness, adherence to budget (especially relevant for fixed-price contracts), quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. A review of their federal contract history, potentially through resources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), would provide insights into their reliability and experience.

Given the firm fixed-price nature, what are the potential risks for the government regarding cost overruns?

While a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide cost certainty to the government, risks can still emerge. If the scope of work was not adequately defined, or if unforeseen site conditions arise that were not reasonably foreseeable, the contractor may seek equitable adjustments or claim additional costs. However, under an FFP contract, the burden of proof for such claims is high, and the contractor generally absorbs cost overruns resulting from their own inefficiencies or poor estimating. The government's primary risk mitigation lies in thorough pre-award planning and robust contract administration.

What does the presence of 7 bidders signify for the efficiency of taxpayer spending on this contract?

Having 7 bidders for this $11.7 million construction contract is a positive indicator for taxpayer value. A higher number of bidders generally signifies robust competition, which pressures contractors to submit more competitive pricing and offer better terms to win the award. This competitive environment helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the services rendered and that taxpayer funds are being utilized efficiently. It suggests that the market had sufficient capacity and interest to bid on this particular project.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building 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: N4008006R0014

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5501 RANDOLPH RD, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20852

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,702,275

Exercised Options: $11,702,275

Current Obligation: $11,702,275

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline