Department of Defense awards $45.4M contract for operational archives and research facility construction in Washington D.C

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $45,361,647 ($45.4M)

Contractor: Grunley Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-09-26

End Date: 2024-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,013 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF WNY-46/67 OPERATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH FACILITY, WASHINGTON DC

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20374

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $45.4 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF WNY-46/67 OPERATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH FACILITY, WASHINGTON DC Key points: 1. The contract value of $45.4 million for construction services appears to be within a reasonable range for a facility of this nature, though specific benchmarks are needed for definitive value-for-money assessment. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust market engagement and potential for competitive pricing. 3. The contract duration of over 6 years (September 2018 to March 2024) indicates a long-term project with potential for cost escalation or scope creep if not managed diligently. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for budget certainty if the scope is well-defined. 5. The project is located in Washington D.C., a high-cost construction market, which may influence the overall price. 6. The absence of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements noted in the data suggests limited direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $45.4 million for the construction of an operational archives and research facility in Washington D.C. requires further benchmarking against similar government or private sector projects to definitively assess value for money. Given the firm-fixed-price nature, the pricing is expected to reflect a comprehensive assessment of costs by the contractor. However, without specific details on the facility's size, scope, and complexity, a precise comparison to market rates or similar contracts is challenging. The duration of the contract (over 6 years) also suggests a significant undertaking where cost control will be paramount.

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 bids. The data shows 5 bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and can incentivize contractors to offer more favorable terms and pricing to secure the award.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a competitive market price, preventing potential overpayment that could occur with less competitive procurement methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, which will gain a dedicated facility for operational archives and research. The services delivered include the construction of a specialized facility, likely involving significant architectural, engineering, and construction labor. The geographic impact is concentrated in Washington D.C., potentially creating local construction jobs and economic activity. The project will likely involve a substantial construction workforce, including skilled trades, project managers, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 6 years) increases the risk of cost overruns due to market fluctuations or unforeseen project complexities.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can lead to contractor claims for changes if the scope is not perfectly defined upfront, potentially increasing costs.
Construction projects in high-cost urban areas like Washington D.C. inherently carry higher cost risks.
Lack of specific details on sustainability or energy efficiency requirements makes it difficult to assess long-term operational value and environmental impact.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, which typically fosters competitive pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the government, assuming scope is well-managed.
The contractor, Grunley Construction Co., Inc., is likely experienced in large-scale construction projects, suggesting a degree of capability.
The project addresses a specific need for operational archives and research facilities, indicating strategic alignment with agency requirements.

Sector Analysis

The construction industry, particularly for specialized government facilities, is a significant sector characterized by large contracts and complex project management. This award falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sub-sector. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar archives or research facilities would be necessary for a precise assessment, but projects of this scale in major metropolitan areas often involve substantial investment. The market size for federal construction is considerable, with agencies frequently contracting for new builds, renovations, and specialized infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award appears minimal. However, the prime contractor, Grunley Construction Co., Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would indirectly benefit them. Further investigation into the subcontracting plan would be needed to fully assess the impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Navy. The firm-fixed-price nature implies that the contractor bears much of the cost risk, but oversight would focus on schedule adherence, quality of work, and compliance with contract terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Archives and Records Management Facilities
Research and Development Infrastructure
Government Real Property Management

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation.
Potential for scope creep in firm-fixed-price contracts if not tightly managed.
High-cost urban location (Washington D.C.) presents inherent cost challenges.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting requirements limits direct SMB participation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $45.4 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. IGF::OT::IGF WNY-46/67 OPERATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH FACILITY, WASHINGTON DC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION 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 $45.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-09-26. End: 2024-03-31.

What is the track record of Grunley Construction Co., Inc. with similar federal construction projects, particularly for specialized facilities?

Grunley Construction Co., Inc. has a notable history of undertaking significant construction projects, including those for government agencies. While specific details on their experience with operational archives and research facilities require a deeper dive into their project portfolio, their involvement in large-scale commercial and institutional building construction suggests they possess the requisite capabilities. Examining past performance evaluations, contract modifications, and any disputes on previous federal contracts would provide a clearer picture of their reliability, cost control, and adherence to schedule for projects of similar complexity and scale. Their presence in the Washington D.C. market also indicates familiarity with local regulations and conditions.

How does the awarded price of $45.4 million compare to similar government-funded archives or research facility construction projects?

A direct comparison of the $45.4 million award to similar projects is challenging without detailed specifications of the facility's size, square footage, specialized systems (e.g., climate control, security, archival storage), and the specific scope of work. However, construction costs in Washington D.C. are generally higher than the national average. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable projects awarded around the same time, factoring in location, facility type, and complexity. Publicly available data from contract award databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) can be queried for similar projects, allowing for a rough cost-per-square-foot or cost-per-cubic-foot analysis, adjusted for regional economic factors and project-specific requirements.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a project spanning over six years?

The primary risks with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for a long-duration project like this revolve around scope definition and market volatility. If the initial scope of work is not meticulously detailed and agreed upon, the contractor may submit numerous change order requests, which, even under FFP, can lead to cost increases and schedule delays as scope is redefined. Furthermore, over a six-year period, significant fluctuations in material costs, labor rates, and unforeseen site conditions can strain the contractor's ability to absorb these changes within the fixed price, potentially leading to claims or performance issues if not managed proactively. The government's risk is primarily that the fixed price might become uncompetitive if market conditions change drastically or if the initial estimate was flawed.

What is the expected effectiveness of this facility in meeting the Department of the Navy's archival and research needs?

The effectiveness of the facility in meeting the Department of the Navy's needs is contingent upon the specific design and capabilities incorporated during construction, which are not detailed in the provided award data. Assuming the facility is designed according to the Navy's requirements for operational archives and research, it should provide a secure, controlled environment for preserving historical records and facilitating research activities. Its effectiveness will be measured by its ability to safeguard sensitive materials, provide adequate space and resources for researchers, and support the Navy's long-term information management and historical preservation goals. Post-occupancy evaluations and usage statistics would be key indicators of its success.

How has federal spending on construction for archives and research facilities trended in recent years, and does this contract align with that trend?

Federal spending on construction for archives and research facilities can fluctuate based on agency priorities, infrastructure needs, and budget allocations. Historically, agencies like the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Department of Defense, and various research-intensive bodies (e.g., NIH, NSF) invest in such infrastructure. Trends may show increased focus on modernization, digital archiving integration, and enhanced security features. This $45.4 million contract for the Department of the Navy aligns with the ongoing need for specialized facilities within the federal government. To assess alignment with broader trends, one would analyze aggregate federal spending data for similar construction categories over the past 5-10 years, looking for patterns in investment levels and types of facilities being prioritized.

What are the potential workforce implications of this construction project in the Washington D.C. area?

This construction project is likely to have significant positive workforce implications for the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Large-scale construction projects require a substantial labor force, including skilled tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons), heavy equipment operators, general laborers, project managers, engineers, architects, and administrative support staff. The duration of the contract (over six years) suggests sustained employment opportunities. This influx of work can stimulate local economies by increasing demand for labor, materials, and related services. It also provides opportunities for training and skill development within the construction trades.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: N4008018R1175

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 15020 SHADY GROVE RD STE 500, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $45,361,647

Exercised Options: $45,361,647

Current Obligation: $45,361,647

Actual Outlays: $1,341,035

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline