DoD's $52.3M URS Group contract for building repair shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $52,305,509 ($52.3M)

Contractor: URS Group Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-09-30

End Date: 2019-05-31

Contract Duration: 1,704 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR/RENEW BLDG #40 FTDL/DCI TRIPLER

Place of Performance

Location: TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96859

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $52.3 million to URS GROUP INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR/RENEW BLDG #40 FTDL/DCI TRIPLER Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the scope of building repair and renovation. 2. Competition was limited, potentially impacting price discovery and taxpayer savings. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long duration and fixed-price contract. 4. Performance context suggests a significant infrastructure project for the Army. 5. Sector positioning is within the broad construction and facilities maintenance domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $52.3 million for building repair and renovation over nearly five years suggests a substantial project. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction and repair contracts is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for value if the initial pricing was competitive. The award amount relative to the estimated value (if available) would provide further insight into whether the government secured a good deal.

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. However, the data does not specify the number of bids received. A high number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing. If only a few bids were submitted, it could suggest market limitations or a lack of robust competition, potentially leading to higher prices than might be achieved in a more crowded field.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to drive down costs through market forces. However, the ultimate benefit depends on the actual level of participation and the resulting bid prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel at the facility requiring repairs. Services delivered include repair and renovation of Building #40 at FTDL/DCI Tripler. Geographic impact is localized to the Tripler Army Medical Center facility in Hawaii. Workforce implications include employment for construction workers, project managers, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (1704 days) increases the risk of scope creep or unforeseen cost escalations if not managed tightly.
Fixed-price contract, while shifting risk to the contractor, can lead to higher initial bids to account for potential contingencies.
Lack of specific details on the number of bidders under 'full and open' competition makes it difficult to fully assess competitive pressure.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting an effort to maximize market participation.
Fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs for a significant military medical facility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the repair, maintenance, and construction of non-residential buildings. The market for such services is typically large and fragmented, with significant government spending allocated to maintaining and upgrading its vast real estate portfolio. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale renovation and repair contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar types of facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false and there was no specific small business set-aside (ss) for this contract. This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and opportunities for small business subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's own policies and the nature of the work required. Without specific subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, though larger construction firms often engage small businesses for specialized tasks.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, ensuring adherence to contract terms, scope, and quality standards. Accountability measures are embedded in the fixed-price contract structure, which incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible. The Inspector General's office could investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Facilities Maintenance and Repair
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related construction
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if fixed-price bid was too low.
Risk of schedule delays due to complexity or unforeseen site conditions.
Adequacy of competition impacting overall value for money.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $52.3 million to URS GROUP INC. IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR/RENEW BLDG #40 FTDL/DCI TRIPLER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is URS GROUP 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 $52.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-30. End: 2019-05-31.

What was the specific scope of work for the repair and renovation of Building #40?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'IGF REPAIR/RENEW BLDG #40 FTDL/DCI TRIPLER'. This suggests the work involved significant repair and renewal activities for Building #40, which is part of the FTDL/DCI Tripler complex. Without access to the detailed contract statement of work (SOW), the precise nature of the repairs remains unspecified. It could encompass structural repairs, system upgrades (HVAC, electrical, plumbing), interior renovations, or exterior facade improvements. The duration of the contract (1704 days, approximately 4.6 years) implies a substantial scope of work, likely involving more than routine maintenance and potentially encompassing major renovations or modernization efforts to extend the building's useful life or improve its functionality.

How many bids were received for this 'full and open competition' contract?

The data explicitly states the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION'. However, it does not specify the number of bids received. This is a critical piece of information for assessing the level of competition. While 'full and open' means all responsible sources could bid, the actual number of bidders can vary significantly. A low number of bidders (e.g., 2 or 3) might indicate limited market capacity, specialized requirements, or potential barriers to entry, which could result in less competitive pricing. Conversely, a high number of bids would typically signal robust competition and potentially better value for the government. Without this number, the assessment of price discovery and taxpayer value is incomplete.

What is the historical spending trend for similar building repair contracts at Tripler Army Medical Center?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar contracts at Tripler Army Medical Center would require accessing a broader dataset of past procurements for facilities maintenance, repair, and construction at that specific location. This contract, valued at approximately $52.3 million over nearly five years, represents a significant investment. Understanding if this amount is consistent with, higher than, or lower than previous expenditures for comparable projects would provide context on current spending levels and potential changes in cost or scope. Factors like inflation, aging infrastructure, and evolving medical facility standards could influence these trends. A detailed analysis would involve comparing contract values, durations, and scopes of work for previous repair and renovation projects at Tripler.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for construction and repair contracts, KPIs would focus on adherence to schedule (on-time completion of milestones and final delivery), quality of work (meeting specifications, defect-free completion), safety performance (incident rates), and budget management (completing work within the fixed price). For a contract of this duration and value, regular progress reports, site inspections, and formal acceptance reviews would be standard oversight mechanisms. The effectiveness of the contractor in meeting these unstated KPIs would directly impact the overall value and success of the project for the Department of Defense.

What is the track record of URS Group Inc. in performing similar large-scale federal construction contracts?

URS Group Inc. has a history of performing large-scale federal construction and engineering contracts. As a subsidiary of AECOM, it has been involved in numerous significant projects for various government agencies, including the Department of Defense. Assessing their specific track record for this particular type of building repair and renovation would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented issues or successes on similar projects, and their overall capacity to manage complex, long-term contracts. Factors like on-time delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work on previous DoD contracts would be relevant indicators of their capability and reliability for this $52.3 million award.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912DY10R0005

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM

Address: 2020 K ST NW STE 300, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,305,509

Exercised Options: $52,305,509

Current Obligation: $52,305,509

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 119

Total Subaward Amount: $914,720,375

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DY12D0016

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline