Army awards $18M for Fort Benning dining facility construction, highlighting firm fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,065,692 ($18.1M)

Contractor: GSC Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-03

End Date: 2011-06-28

Contract Duration: 663 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF TRAINEE BARRACKS DINING FACILITY, FT. BENNING, GA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, MUSCOGEE County, GEORGIA, 31995

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.1 million to GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF TRAINEE BARRACKS DINING FACILITY, FT. BENNING, GA Key points: 1. Contract awarded using full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a structured procurement process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and risk allocation, potentially benefiting cost certainty. 3. A duration of 663 days indicates a significant construction project requiring substantial planning and execution. 4. The award value of approximately $18 million positions this as a notable infrastructure investment for the Army. 5. The contract was awarded to GSC Construction, Inc., a company with experience in commercial and institutional building. 6. The project is located in Georgia, potentially impacting the local construction workforce and economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $18.1 million for a trainee barracks dining facility appears reasonable for a project of this scale and complexity. While specific benchmarking data for similar facilities is not provided, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed significant cost risk. The award amount is within the expected range for large-scale construction projects managed by the Department of the Army. Further analysis would require comparison with similar barracks or dining hall construction projects at other military installations.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded, possibly due to specific qualifications or prior relationships. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition. The exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to understand its impact on price discovery and potential market limitations.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with multiple bidders, may have limited the potential for the most competitive pricing, potentially resulting in a higher cost to taxpayers than a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Army trainees at Fort Benning, Georgia, who will receive improved dining facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure for troop support and morale, contributing to overall military readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated at Fort Benning, Georgia, supporting the local economy through construction jobs and services. The construction activities will likely involve a significant number of skilled tradespeople, impacting the regional construction workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method could limit overall market reach and potentially inflate prices.
The long project duration (663 days) increases the risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen construction challenges or material price fluctuations.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and value delivery beyond the final construction.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, encouraging efficient project management.
The award to GSC Construction, Inc. suggests a selection based on qualifications and competitive bidding, even with source exclusions.
The project addresses a critical need for improved trainee facilities, directly supporting military personnel.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, frequently awarding large contracts for infrastructure development, barracks, and support facilities. Benchmarks for similar military construction projects often vary widely based on location, specific requirements, and market conditions, but projects in the multi-million dollar range are common for barracks and dining facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'small business set-aside' field is false. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without specific subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large construction projects often utilize small businesses for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of the Army contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and project management personnel within the Army Corps of Engineers or the relevant installation command. Accountability is primarily driven by the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring completion to specifications. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed project progress reports are usually internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Barracks Construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects
Fort Benning Construction Contracts
Federal Building Construction
Dining Facility Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of cost overruns on long-duration fixed-price contracts.
Need for robust oversight on extended construction timelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.1 million to GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC.. CONSTRUCTION OF TRAINEE BARRACKS DINING FACILITY, FT. BENNING, GA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-03. End: 2011-06-28.

What is the track record of GSC Construction, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

GSC Construction, Inc. has a history of performing federal contracts, including work for the Department of Defense. While this specific contract for the Fort Benning dining facility is a significant award, a comprehensive review of their federal contracting history would involve examining past performance on similar projects, including their on-time and on-budget delivery rates, any past disputes or contract modifications, and overall client satisfaction. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) can provide details on their award history, contract values, and agencies served. A deeper dive would assess their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and large-scale institutional construction to gauge their capability and reliability for this project.

How does the $18.1 million award compare to similar trainee barracks dining facility construction projects?

Benchmarking the $18.1 million award requires comparing it to similar projects in terms of size, scope, and location. Factors such as square footage, capacity, specific culinary equipment, and architectural complexity significantly influence cost. Projects at other military installations or even large institutional dining facilities in the private sector could serve as comparators. Without specific details on the facility's size and features, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a large-scale dining facility designed to serve a significant number of trainees, an $18 million price tag is within the expected range for major construction projects, especially considering prevailing labor and material costs in Georgia at the time of award (2009-2011).

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a 663-day construction project?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for a long-duration project like this 663-day construction, is that the contractor bears the brunt of cost overruns. If material prices escalate unexpectedly, labor costs increase, or unforeseen site conditions arise, the contractor's profit margin shrinks, or they could incur a loss. Conversely, the government's risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality to protect profits if costs rise significantly, or that the initial price might have been inflated to account for the contractor's perceived risk. For the government, the benefit is cost certainty, but the risk lies in potential quality compromises or contractor financial distress if costs spiral.

What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply for the bidding process and potential cost savings?

This procurement method, 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' is a nuanced approach. It means the solicitation was made available to all responsible sources, but specific sources were intentionally excluded beforehand. This exclusion could be based on pre-qualification criteria, past performance, or other factors deemed necessary by the agency. While it aims for broad competition, the exclusion inherently limits the pool of potential bidders compared to unrestricted full and open competition. With 3 bidders, there was some competition, but the exclusion might have prevented potentially lower bids from excluded firms, thus potentially impacting the cost savings realized by the government compared to a scenario with a wider, unrestricted bidder pool.

How might the exclusion of sources have impacted the final contract price compared to unrestricted competition?

The exclusion of certain sources from the bidding process could have led to a higher final contract price than if the competition had been entirely unrestricted. When the pool of potential bidders is smaller, there is less pressure on each bidder to offer the lowest possible price to secure the contract. Competitors might have had less incentive to aggressively price their bids if they knew certain potentially lower-cost or more efficient competitors were barred from participating. Therefore, while the contract was competed, the specific method of exclusion introduces a risk that the government may not have achieved the absolute lowest price achievable in a completely open market.

What are the potential implications of a 663-day construction timeline for project management and oversight?

A 663-day (approximately 22-month) construction timeline for a dining facility presents significant project management and oversight challenges. It requires sustained attention to detail, regular progress monitoring, and proactive risk management to address potential delays, cost fluctuations, and quality control issues over an extended period. The Army would need robust oversight mechanisms, likely involving resident engineers or construction representatives, to ensure adherence to the schedule, budget, and specifications. Managing stakeholder expectations, coordinating with base operations, and ensuring contractor performance remain high throughout this duration are critical. The extended timeline also increases the exposure to potential changes in regulations, environmental conditions, or economic factors that could impact the 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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9123608R0015

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1727 WRIGHTSBORO RD, AUGUSTA, GA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,065,692

Exercised Options: $18,065,692

Current Obligation: $18,065,692

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9123608D0066

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline