DoD's $33.7M construction contract for Murray School awarded to Brasfield & Gorrie LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,673,152 ($33.7M)

Contractor: Brasfield & Gorrie LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-08-15

End Date: 2014-07-15

Contract Duration: 699 days

Daily Burn Rate: $48.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 53

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MURRAY SCHOOL

Place of Performance

Location: POPE AFB, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28308

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.7 million to BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC for work described as: MURRAY SCHOOL Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in educational infrastructure for military families. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor, providing cost certainty. 4. Project duration of 699 days indicates a substantial construction undertaking. 5. The contract falls within the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting defense-related infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $33.7 million for a school construction project appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale educational facility constructions by the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests the contractor assumed significant risk, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids but offers greater cost predictability for the government.

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. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The presence of 53 bids suggests a highly competitive scenario, which is generally favorable for achieving fair market prices and selecting the most capable contractor.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like this one is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down costs through market forces, ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its investment in infrastructure.

Public Impact

Military families and children stationed at the facility will benefit from improved educational infrastructure. The project delivers essential construction services for a new school building. The geographic impact is localized to North Carolina, where the school is presumably located. The construction project will likely create numerous jobs in the skilled trades and construction sector in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Delays in construction could impact the operational readiness of the facility.
Ensuring compliance with all environmental and safety regulations during construction.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a strong likelihood of receiving competitive pricing.
Contractor's experience in large-scale construction projects is a positive indicator.
Awarded by a major federal agency (Department of the Army) implies adherence to rigorous standards.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade government facilities, including military bases and educational institutions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale school or facility construction contracts awarded by federal agencies, particularly within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. While Brasfield & Gorrie LLC is a large contractor, the lack of explicit small business provisions means that opportunities for small business participation may be limited to those they voluntarily engage. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project oversight details are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Educational Facilities Construction
Department of Defense Contracts
General Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of construction delays impacting facility readiness.
Need for stringent quality control to ensure contractor meets specifications.
Ensuring compliance with environmental and safety regulations throughout the project lifecycle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.7 million to BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC. MURRAY SCHOOL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC.

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: 2012-08-15. End: 2014-07-15.

What is the track record of Brasfield & Gorrie LLC with the Department of Defense?

Brasfield & Gorrie LLC has a significant history of contracting with the federal government, including the Department of Defense. While this specific contract is for $33.7 million, their portfolio likely includes numerous other projects of varying sizes and complexities. Analyzing their past performance on similar DoD projects, including on-time delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability. Federal procurement data often includes past performance evaluations, which are crucial for assessing a contractor's suitability for future awards. Their experience in large-scale institutional and commercial building construction suggests they are well-equipped for projects like the Murray School.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar school construction projects by the DoD?

The $33.7 million award for the Murray School construction needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess its value. Factors such as square footage, specific educational facilities included (e.g., labs, gyms), and regional construction cost variations play a significant role. For instance, a 100,000 sq ft school in a high-cost-of-living area might naturally cost more than a smaller facility in a lower-cost region. Comparing the cost per square foot or cost per student capacity of this contract against other DoD school projects awarded within a similar timeframe and geographic scope would be an effective method for value assessment. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents excellent or fair value.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risks for the government in a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract are generally lower than in cost-reimbursement contracts, as the price is set. However, risks can still exist. For the contractor, the main risk is underestimating costs, leading to reduced profit or even a loss if unforeseen issues arise. For the government, risks include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if not adequately overseen, or disputes arising over contract scope or unforeseen conditions. The long duration (699 days) increases the potential for such issues. Robust government oversight, clear contract specifications, and diligent inspection are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring the best value for taxpayer money in construction contracts?

Full and open competition is widely considered the most effective method for ensuring the best value for taxpayer money in construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential contractors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and innovative solutions. A larger number of bidders (53 in this case) intensifies this competitive pressure. This process helps prevent price gouging and ensures that the contract is awarded to the offeror who represents the best overall value, considering price, technical qualifications, and past performance. While it requires more administrative effort upfront, the long-term savings and quality improvements typically outweigh the initial investment.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for similar construction projects by the Department of the Army reveal a consistent and substantial investment in infrastructure. The Army, like other branches of the DoD, regularly procures construction services for barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings, and educational institutions. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on geopolitical needs, base realignment and closure initiatives, and aging infrastructure replacement cycles. Analyzing past annual spending on general building construction (NAICS 236220) by the Army would show whether this $33.7 million award is in line with typical investment levels or represents a significant increase or decrease. Factors like economic conditions and material costs also influence historical spending patterns.

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: W912HN09R0088

Offers Received: 53

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3021 7TH AVE S, BIRMINGHAM, AL, 35233

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,673,152

Exercised Options: $33,673,152

Current Obligation: $33,673,152

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN10D0046

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline