Navy Awards $21.3M Construction Contract to Gray Construction for Industrial Buildings

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,303,520 ($21.3M)

Contractor: Gray Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-09-30

End Date: 2009-02-27

Contract Duration: 2,342 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200212!142018!1700!C2467 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6246702C0293 !A!N! !N! !20020930!20041014!007002181!007002181!108349234!N!JAMES N GRAY COMPANY !10 QUALITY STREET !LEXINGTON !KY!40507!17000!273!48!CORPUS CHRISTI !KLEBERG !TEXAS !+000009036950!N!N!000000000000!Y159!OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !233310!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!002!B! !D!N!C! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!C!A!A!000!A!C!Y! !N! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES County, TEXAS, 78419

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.3 million to GRAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: 200212!142018!1700!C2467 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6246702C0293 !A!N! !N! !20020930!20041014!007002181!007002181!108349234!N!JAMES N GRAY COMPANY !10 QUALITY STREET !LEXINGTON !KY!40507!17000!273!48!CORPUS CHRISTI !KLEBE… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for "OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS" construction. 2. Gray Construction, Inc. is the contractor. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition. 4. The sector is Construction, with a specific PSC code not provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value is $21.3 million. Without specific details on the scope of work or comparable projects, a precise pricing assessment is difficult. However, the duration of over 7 years suggests a potentially complex or phased project.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. This method generally promotes price discovery and potentially better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the award suggests taxpayers likely received a fair price for the construction services rendered.

Public Impact

Supports military infrastructure development through construction services. Provides employment opportunities within the construction sector in Texas. Contributes to the operational readiness of naval facilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Long contract duration (over 7 years) may indicate potential for cost overruns or scope creep.
  • Lack of specific Product Service Code (PSC) makes detailed benchmarking challenging.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
  • Firm Fixed Price contract type helps control costs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector. Federal spending in construction can vary significantly based on infrastructure needs, defense spending, and economic conditions. Benchmarks for industrial building construction depend heavily on project specifics.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this specific award (sb: false). There is no indication of subcontracting goals or achievements for small businesses within this record.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was awarded by the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy. Standard federal procurement oversight processes would apply, including contract administration and performance monitoring.

Related Government Programs

  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

  • Long contract duration (over 7 years).
  • Lack of specific Product Service Code (PSC).
  • No explicit mention of small business subcontracting.
  • Limited detail on the scope of work for 'OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS'.

Tags

department-of-defense, tx, definitive-contract, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.3 million to GRAY CONSTRUCTION, INC.. 200212!142018!1700!C2467 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6246702C0293 !A!N! !N! !20020930!20041014!007002181!007002181!108349234!N!JAMES N GRAY COMPANY !10 QUALITY STREET !LEXINGTON !KY!40507!17000!273!48!CORPUS CHRISTI !KLEBERG !TEXAS !+000009036950!N!N!000000000000!Y159!OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !233310!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRAY CONSTRUCTION, 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 $21.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-09-30. End: 2009-02-27.

What was the specific scope of work for the "OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS" and how does the $21.3 million price compare to similar projects?

The provided data lacks specific details on the scope of work for the industrial buildings. A comprehensive comparison would require access to detailed project specifications, architectural plans, and cost breakdowns. Without this, it's challenging to definitively assess if $21.3 million represents optimal value. Further investigation into the nature of the buildings (e.g., size, complexity, materials) is needed.

Given the contract's duration of over 7 years, what mechanisms were in place to mitigate risks associated with potential cost increases or schedule delays?

The contract utilized a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type, which generally shifts cost risk to the contractor. However, for long-duration contracts, mechanisms like economic price adjustments or clear change order procedures are crucial. The data does not specify these details, but the FFP structure suggests an intent to cap costs. The long duration itself, however, remains a potential risk factor for unforeseen issues.

How effectively did the full and open competition process ensure the best possible outcome for this significant construction project?

The full and open competition is a positive indicator for achieving a competitive price and selecting a capable contractor. The success of this process hinges on the clarity of the solicitation, the responsiveness of bidders, and the thoroughness of the evaluation. While the FFP structure and competitive award suggest a good outcome, the long contract duration warrants ongoing monitoring to ensure continued effectiveness and value realization.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Gray, Inc. (UEI: 108349234)

Address: 10 QUALITY STREET, LEXINGTON, KY, 40507

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2002-09-30

Current End Date: 2009-02-27

Potential End Date: 2009-02-27 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-07-28

More Contracts from Gray Construction, Inc.

View all Gray Construction, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending