Dormitory renovation contract awarded to Gilbane Federal for over $15.2 million at FE Warren Air Force Base

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,204,523 ($15.2M)

Contractor: Gilbane Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-02-29

End Date: 2010-03-31

Contract Duration: 761 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MILITARY BRANCH - RENOVATION OF FE WARREN DORMS 220 & 228

Place of Performance

Location: CHEYENNE, LARAMIE County, WYOMING, 82001

State: Wyoming Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.2 million to GILBANE FEDERAL for work described as: MILITARY BRANCH - RENOVATION OF FE WARREN DORMS 220 & 228 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for large-scale institutional construction, but specific benchmarks are needed for definitive value assessment. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for this type of construction service. 3. Contract duration of over two years indicates a significant scope of work. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially impacting final cost if unforeseen issues arise. 5. Project located in Wyoming, a state with a smaller construction market compared to national averages. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting larger firms dominated the bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $15.2 million for renovating two dormitory buildings is substantial. Without specific details on the scope of work (e.g., square footage, level of renovation), direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, for large-scale institutional construction projects, this figure is within a plausible range. Further analysis would require benchmarking against per-square-foot renovation costs for similar government or commercial projects in the region or nationally.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 7 bidders suggests a competitive environment for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government, although the specific pricing outcomes are not detailed here.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive bid environment, potentially saving taxpayer dollars compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

Service members at FE Warren Air Force Base will benefit from improved living quarters. The project delivers construction and renovation services, enhancing military infrastructure. Geographic impact is concentrated in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The contract supports the construction workforce, likely employing skilled tradespeople and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise under a firm fixed-price contract.
Limited visibility into the specific quality control measures employed by the contractor.
The long contract duration could lead to potential delays or scope creep if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
The contractor, Gilbane Federal, has a track record with government contracts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. This sector is a significant part of the broader construction industry, encompassing a wide range of projects from educational facilities to healthcare buildings and government infrastructure. Federal spending in this area is crucial for maintaining and upgrading government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be analyzed on a per-square-foot basis or as a percentage of total construction project costs.

Small Business Impact

The absence of a small business set-aside indicates that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. With 7 bidders in a full and open competition, it is likely that larger, established construction firms, such as Gilbane Federal, were the primary participants. This suggests that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they were not a primary driver of the prime contract award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and financial reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Housing Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of project delays given the extended duration.
Contractor performance risk on large-scale institutional construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.2 million to GILBANE FEDERAL. MILITARY BRANCH - RENOVATION OF FE WARREN DORMS 220 & 228

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 $15.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-29. End: 2010-03-31.

What is Gilbane Federal's track record with similar dormitory renovation projects for the Department of Defense?

Gilbane Federal has a significant history of performing construction and renovation work for the Department of Defense. While specific data on dormitory renovations is not provided here, their portfolio often includes barracks, housing, and other institutional facilities on military bases. Analyzing their past performance on similar projects, including any past performance ratings or awards, would provide further insight into their capability to execute this contract successfully. Their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and navigating the complexities of military construction environments is a key factor.

How does the $15.2 million contract value compare to industry benchmarks for dormitory renovation?

Benchmarking the $15.2 million contract value requires more granular data on the scope of work, such as the total square footage renovated, the extent of the renovation (e.g., gut renovation vs. cosmetic upgrades), and the specific types of improvements (e.g., structural, MEP, finishes). However, for large-scale dormitory renovations on military bases, which often involve significant upgrades to meet modern standards and potentially include structural work, this value is plausible. A typical benchmark might be analyzed on a per-square-foot basis. For instance, if the renovation covers 100,000 square feet, the cost per square foot would be approximately $152, which falls within the higher end but not necessarily unreasonable for specialized government construction.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract for dormitory renovation?

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for dormitory renovation is the potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during construction that were not adequately accounted for in the initial bid. This could include discovering structural problems, hazardous materials, or unexpected site conditions. While the FFP shifts financial risk to the contractor, significant issues could lead to contractor claims for equitable adjustments, delays, or even contractor default if the project becomes financially untenable for them. Effective project management and contingency planning by the contractor are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money for this type of construction contract?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money in federal contracting, including for construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that 7 bidders participated in this contract suggests a healthy level of competition, which increases the likelihood that the government received competitive pricing. However, value for money is also dependent on the clarity of the solicitation, the evaluation criteria, and the contractor's ability to execute the work efficiently and to the required standards.

What is the historical spending trend for dormitory renovation at FE Warren Air Force Base or similar facilities?

Historical spending data for dormitory renovation at FE Warren Air Force Base or similar facilities would provide valuable context for assessing the current contract's value. Analyzing past contracts for similar scope and scale, adjusted for inflation, can reveal trends in pricing and identify any significant deviations. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to determine if this $15.2 million award represents an increase or decrease compared to previous investments in dormitory infrastructure at this base or comparable installations. Such analysis would help identify potential patterns of underinvestment or escalating costs.

What are the implications of the contract duration (761 days) on project oversight and potential for delays?

A contract duration of 761 days (approximately two years) for dormitory renovation signifies a substantial project scope. This extended timeline necessitates robust oversight to ensure progress is maintained, quality standards are met, and the project stays on schedule and within budget. Longer durations increase the potential for encountering unforeseen issues, such as material price fluctuations, labor availability challenges, or changes in regulatory requirements, which could lead to delays or cost adjustments. Effective communication channels between the government and the contractor, along with regular progress reviews, are critical for managing such a lengthy 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

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Address: 2730 SHADELANDS DR # 100, WALNUT CREEK, CA, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,204,523

Exercised Options: $15,204,523

Current Obligation: $15,204,523

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline