DOD's $63.6M Gilbane Federal contract for construction services awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $63,566,397 ($63.6M)

Contractor: Gilbane Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-05-29

End Date: 2025-04-08

Contract Duration: 3,967 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONTRACT W912GB-14-C-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION CAN NOT BE INCLUDED DUE TO SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROJECT.

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $63.6 million to GILBANE FEDERAL for work described as: CONTRACT W912GB-14-C-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION CAN NOT BE INCLUDED DUE TO SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROJECT. Key points: 1. Contract value of $63.6 million over an 11-year period suggests significant project scope. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price suggests cost certainty for the government. 4. Long contract duration (over 10 years) may indicate a need for sustained services or a large-scale, multi-phase project. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, which could impact opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable contract data. The firm fixed price structure is generally favorable for cost control. However, the extended duration of over 10 years necessitates careful monitoring to ensure continued value and prevent cost creep. Without more information on the scope of work and market rates for similar large-scale construction projects, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 4 bids indicates a degree of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery. However, the number of bidders is relatively low for a contract of this magnitude, which could warrant further investigation into potential barriers to entry or market concentration.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible prices for taxpayers. A competitive process, even with a limited number of bidders, should theoretically drive down costs compared to a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the construction services provided, likely supporting military infrastructure or facilities. The project's geographic impact and specific services delivered are classified, limiting public understanding. The contract may have implications for the construction workforce, potentially creating or sustaining jobs in the relevant sector. The long-term nature of the contract suggests a sustained need for the services, contributing to ongoing operational readiness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding project specifics due to security classification hinders comprehensive analysis.
The relatively low number of bids (4) for a large contract could indicate limited competition or high barriers to entry.
The extended contract duration of over 11 years requires robust oversight to ensure continued cost-effectiveness and performance.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing potential bidder pool.
Firm fixed price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract has been active for a significant period, suggesting a sustained need and potentially stable performance.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the federal procurement landscape, encompassing a wide range of building and infrastructure projects. This contract falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220). Federal spending in this sector is driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, and build facilities for various government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost per square foot or per project for similar types of government buildings, factoring in location and complexity.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific small business subcontracting goals indicated. This means that large businesses were the primary focus for bidding. While large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for subcontracting, the absence of explicit set-asides or goals means there's less direct assurance of small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement through subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Army's contracting officers and potentially program managers. Given the security classification, transparency may be limited. Accountability measures would be tied to the firm fixed price contract terms, with penalties or remedies for non-performance. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected, though access to project details might be restricted.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
General Building Construction Services
Long-Term Government Contracts
Firm Fixed Price Contracts

Risk Flags

Security classification limits transparency and detailed analysis.
Relatively low number of bidders for a large contract may indicate limited competition.
Long contract duration increases risk of cost escalation and performance degradation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $63.6 million to GILBANE FEDERAL. CONTRACT W912GB-14-C-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION CAN NOT BE INCLUDED DUE TO SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROJECT.

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 $63.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-05-29. End: 2025-04-08.

What is the historical spending pattern for Gilbane Federal with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing Gilbane Federal's historical spending with the Department of Defense (DoD) requires access to a broader dataset of their contracts. Without specific data on their past performance, it's difficult to provide a detailed historical spending pattern. Generally, a contractor's track record with a specific agency can indicate their reliability, capacity, and competitive pricing. A history of successful contract completions, positive performance reviews, and competitive bidding on similar projects would suggest a strong relationship. Conversely, a history of disputes, cost overruns, or performance issues might raise concerns. For this specific contract (W912GB-14-C-0018), the long duration and firm fixed price suggest a need for consistent performance over time.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to similar construction projects?

Determining the per-unit cost comparison for this contract is not feasible due to the security classification of the project description and location. Per-unit costs in construction can be benchmarked using metrics like cost per square foot, cost per cubic yard of material, or cost per labor hour, depending on the nature of the work. Without knowing the specific deliverables (e.g., type of building, size, complexity, materials used), it's impossible to establish relevant benchmarks. The $63.6 million total award over an extended period makes a simple average cost per year or per day misleading. A proper comparison would require detailed project specifications and market data for similar, unclassified government construction projects.

What are the primary risks associated with a long-duration construction contract like this?

Long-duration construction contracts, such as this 11-year award, present several risks. Material and labor costs can fluctuate significantly over such a long period, potentially impacting the contractor's profitability if not adequately managed within the firm fixed price. Changes in technology or building codes could necessitate costly modifications. Furthermore, the risk of contractor performance degradation over time increases; key personnel may leave, or institutional knowledge can be lost. For the government, the risk of the project becoming outdated or no longer meeting evolving needs is also present. Effective risk mitigation involves robust contract management, regular performance reviews, and potentially incorporating mechanisms for scope adjustments or price re-evaluations if certain triggers are met.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money on large construction projects?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money on large construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it maximizes the potential for a wide range of innovative solutions and competitive pricing. The process encourages bidders to offer their best terms to win the contract. However, the effectiveness is contingent on the clarity of the solicitation, the fairness of the evaluation criteria, and the actual level of competition (i.e., the number and capability of bidders). For this $63.6 million contract, the fact that it was competed fully and received four bids suggests a reasonable level of market interest, which should contribute to achieving value for the government.

What are the implications of the firm fixed price (FFP) contract type for this project?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type for this $63.6 million construction project places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor, Gilbane Federal. This is generally advantageous for the government as it provides a high degree of cost certainty. The contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to manage their expenses efficiently and control project scope. However, FFP contracts can sometimes lead to higher initial bid prices to account for the contractor's risk. Additionally, if the scope of work needs to change significantly, contract modifications can become complex and potentially costly if not managed carefully.

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: W912GB14R0033

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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: $63,566,397

Exercised Options: $63,566,397

Current Obligation: $63,566,397

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline