Gilbane Federal awarded $33.7M for construction services, with 7 bids received under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,681,504 ($33.7M)

Contractor: Gilbane Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-09-05

End Date: 2018-07-16

Contract Duration: 1,410 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF GPW AT DDJC TRACY

Place of Performance

Location: TRACY, SAN JOAQUIN County, CALIFORNIA, 95304

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.7 million to GILBANE FEDERAL for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF GPW AT DDJC TRACY Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in infrastructure development. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust market for construction services. 3. The number of bids indicates a healthy level of interest and potential for competitive pricing. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 5. The contract duration of 1410 days points to a substantial, long-term project. 6. Geographic concentration in California may indicate regional infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $33.7 million for construction services appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the initial pricing was deemed acceptable and that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which is a positive indicator for cost control.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with seven bids received. This indicates a competitive bidding process where multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of seven bidders suggests a healthy market and likely contributed to achieving a competitive price for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The high level of competition benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its investment in construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who will receive improved facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, suggesting a focus on military infrastructure within that state. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the California region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly given the long duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for a large project introduces performance risk.
Geographic concentration could limit future flexibility if needs shift.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract mitigates cost escalation risk for the government.
Full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Award to a known entity, Gilbane Federal, may indicate a track record of successful project completion.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure development and facility maintenance. This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sub-sector. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, capacity expansion, and replacement of aging facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar government construction projects or the total annual federal outlays for construction services.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Gilbane Federal, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, contributing to the small business ecosystem. An analysis of Gilbane Federal's subcontracting history would be needed to assess the actual impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project details might be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or material obsolescence.
Geographic concentration could pose challenges if needs shift or local conditions change.
Reliance on a single contractor for a large project requires robust performance monitoring.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.7 million to GILBANE FEDERAL. IGF::OT::IGF GPW AT DDJC TRACY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GILBANE FEDERAL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-05. End: 2018-07-16.

What is Gilbane Federal's track record with the Department of Defense for similar construction contracts?

Gilbane Federal has a substantial history of working with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies on large-scale construction projects. Their portfolio often includes military barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings, and infrastructure upgrades. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any documented disputes or contract modifications, and the successful completion of projects of similar scope and value would provide insight into their reliability and capability. A review of their award history within the DoD, specifically for firm fixed-price contracts, would further contextualize their experience and potential risks associated with this specific award.

How does the awarded amount compare to the average cost of similar construction projects within the Department of Defense?

To benchmark the $33.7 million award, one would need to compare it against similar construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense. Key comparison factors include project type (e.g., barracks, office building, hangar), square footage, complexity, location, and the year of award. For instance, if this contract is for a large barracks complex, comparing its cost per square foot to other recently awarded barracks projects of similar size and quality standards would be appropriate. Without specific project details, a general comparison to the average cost of large institutional or commercial building construction for the DoD would suggest that $33.7 million is a substantial but not necessarily excessive amount for a significant facility.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project of this duration?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a long-duration project (1410 days), is that the contractor may face unforeseen cost increases due to market fluctuations in labor, materials, or fuel prices. If these costs rise significantly beyond what was anticipated during the bidding phase, the contractor's profit margin will be squeezed, potentially leading to quality compromises or even financial distress. Conversely, the government's risk is that the initial price might have been inflated to account for the contractor's perceived risk, leading to overpayment if costs remain stable. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure the contractor maintains quality and adheres to the contract's scope throughout the extended period.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money in federal construction contracts?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money in federal construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to submit bids, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. The presence of multiple bidders, as seen with the seven bids in this case, intensifies this competition, pushing contractors to offer their best prices and most efficient solutions to win the contract. This process helps the government avoid paying inflated prices and encourages contractors to be more innovative and cost-conscious. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the government's ability to accurately evaluate the technical and price proposals.

What are the historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of Defense?

The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funds towards commercial and institutional building construction to maintain and modernize its vast infrastructure. Historical spending patterns reveal a cyclical nature, often influenced by military readiness needs, geopolitical events, and congressional appropriations. Major construction initiatives may be tied to force structure changes, troop deployments, or the replacement of aging facilities. Annual outlays can fluctuate widely, ranging from billions to tens of billions of dollars, depending on the scale of modernization programs and new construction requirements. Analyzing trends over the past decade would show periods of increased investment during wartime or major base consolidation efforts, and potentially lower spending during fiscal austerity.

What oversight mechanisms are in place for large federal construction contracts awarded under full and open competition?

Oversight for large federal construction contracts, even those awarded under full and open competition, involves multiple layers. The Contracting Officer (CO) is the primary point of contact and holds the authority to administer the contract. Project Managers (PMs) or Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs) provide day-to-day oversight of performance, ensuring work is completed according to specifications, schedule, and budget. Site inspections, progress reports, and regular meetings are standard oversight tools. For construction, quality assurance representatives (QARs) often monitor the technical aspects of the work. Furthermore, the Inspector General (IG) for the relevant agency (in this case, the Department of Defense) has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse, providing an independent layer of accountability.

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: W9123814R0001

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc. (UEI: 022726165)

Address: 2730 SHADELANDS DR, WALNUT CREEK, CA, 94598

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,681,504

Exercised Options: $33,681,504

Current Obligation: $33,681,504

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline