Navy awards $25.7M design-build parking garage contract to Clark/Balfour Beatty JV in Maryland

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,670,641 ($25.7M)

Contractor: Clark/Balfour Beatty, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-04

End Date: 2011-10-30

Contract Duration: 544 days

Daily Burn Rate: $47.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN BUILD OF THE MULTI-USE PARKING

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20814

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.7 million to CLARK/BALFOUR BEATTY, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: DESIGN BUILD OF THE MULTI-USE PARKING Key points: 1. Contract awarded via sole-source justification, raising questions about potential cost savings from competition. 2. The fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and risk allocation. 3. Project duration of 544 days indicates a significant construction timeline. 4. The contract falls under commercial building construction, a common sector for federal procurement. 5. Geographic location in Maryland may offer insights into regional construction market dynamics.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $25.7 million for a parking garage is difficult to benchmark without specific details on size, capacity, and complexity. However, the lack of competition suggests that taxpayers may not have benefited from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process. Without comparative data from similar sole-source awards or open-market projects, assessing the value for money is challenging. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the absence of competitive pressure could lead to a less optimal price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor was solicited. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple firms submitting proposals. The lack of competition means there was no direct comparison of offers, potentially limiting the government's ability to secure the most advantageous terms and pricing. The justification for a sole-source award would need to be robust to ensure it served the government's best interest.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in higher costs for taxpayers as the benefits of competitive pricing are forgone. This limits the government's leverage in negotiating the best possible price and terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and its personnel, who will gain improved parking facilities. The project delivers a multi-use parking structure, enhancing infrastructure at a Navy installation. The geographic impact is localized to Maryland, where the construction will take place. The contract supports jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades and project management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source procurement.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to change orders if scope is not perfectly defined upfront.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract awarded to a joint venture, potentially leveraging combined expertise.
Project addresses a specific infrastructure need for the Department of the Navy.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of projects, from small renovations to large-scale facilities. Federal spending in this area is substantial, supporting military bases, government offices, and other public infrastructure. The market typically involves numerous construction firms, with varying degrees of specialization and capacity. Benchmarking this contract's value would ideally involve comparing it to similar design-build parking garage projects awarded by other federal agencies or state governments.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb: false'. Furthermore, there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses may be limited to direct subcontracting by the prime contractor, Clark/Balfour Beatty, a joint venture. The absence of set-aside provisions means the primary award went to a large business entity, with potential downstream impacts on the small business ecosystem depending on the prime's subcontracting strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Navy. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. However, the sole-source award mechanism warrants scrutiny to ensure the justification was sound and that the government received fair value. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and any subsequent modifications would be key to assessing accountability.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Navy Facilities Modernization Projects
Design-Build Construction Services
Commercial Building Construction

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification.
Potential for uncompetitive pricing.
Limited transparency in procurement process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.7 million to CLARK/BALFOUR BEATTY, A JOINT VENTURE. DESIGN BUILD OF THE MULTI-USE PARKING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CLARK/BALFOUR BEATTY, A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-04. End: 2011-10-30.

What was the specific justification provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified under circumstances such as urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities of a single source, or when a competitive process has failed to yield adequate results. Without this justification, it is difficult to assess whether the decision to bypass competition was appropriate and in the best interest of the government. Further investigation into the contract file or agency records would be necessary to understand the rationale behind this procurement approach and its potential impact on pricing and value.

How does the $25.7 million contract value compare to similar design-build parking garage projects?

Direct comparison of the $25.7 million contract value for this parking garage is challenging without more detailed project specifications, such as square footage, number of parking spaces, construction materials, and specific site requirements. However, federal construction projects, especially those involving design-build delivery, can vary significantly in cost. The absence of competitive bidding in this sole-source award makes it harder to establish a clear market benchmark. To provide a robust comparison, one would need to identify similar-sized and complex design-build parking garage projects awarded through competitive processes by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, analyzing their cost per square foot or cost per parking space.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for a construction project of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for a construction project of this magnitude is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing. There's also a risk that the chosen contractor may not possess the most innovative or cost-effective solutions compared to what might have emerged from a competitive process. Furthermore, sole-source awards can sometimes raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process, potentially leading to scrutiny from oversight bodies or the public if the justification is not perceived as adequate.

What is the track record of Clark/Balfour Beatty, a Joint Venture, in executing similar federal construction contracts?

The provided data indicates the contractor is 'CLARK/BALFOUR BEATTY, A JOINT VENTURE'. To assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance on similar federal construction contracts, particularly design-build projects of comparable size and complexity. This would involve reviewing contract databases for previous awards to this specific joint venture or its constituent companies, looking at factors like on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A positive track record would suggest a lower risk of performance issues, while a history of challenges might indicate potential concerns for this project.

How does the firm-fixed-price contract type influence risk allocation between the government and the contractor?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to place the majority of the risk and responsibility for cost overruns on the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor agrees to perform a specified scope of work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides the government with cost certainty. However, if the contractor underestimates costs or encounters unforeseen difficulties, they bear the financial burden. Conversely, if they manage costs efficiently, they can achieve a higher profit margin. The risk for the government lies in ensuring the initial price is fair and that the scope is well-defined to minimize costly change orders.

What is the historical spending pattern for multi-use parking garage construction by the Department of the Navy?

The provided data is specific to a single contract and does not offer historical spending patterns for multi-use parking garage construction by the Department of the Navy. To analyze historical spending, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like USASpending.gov or FPDS) for similar contracts awarded over several fiscal years. This analysis would involve identifying contracts with keywords related to 'parking garage,' 'multi-use facility,' and 'design-build' within the Navy's portfolio. Examining the number of such contracts, their values, award types (competed vs. sole-source), and durations would reveal trends in investment and procurement strategies for this type of infrastructure.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N4008010R1006

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Clark Enterprises, Inc. (UEI: 064862345)

Address: 7500 OLD GEORGETOWN RD, BETHESDA, MD, 20814

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,670,641

Exercised Options: $25,670,641

Current Obligation: $25,670,641

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline