Firelake Construction Inc. awarded $6.6M contract for biocontainment lab sealing improvements by USDA

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,604,978 ($6.6M)

Contractor: Firelake Construction Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2025-06-11

End Date: 2026-06-19

Contract Duration: 373 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BIOCONTAINMENT LAB PENETRATION SEALING IMPROVEMENTS

Place of Performance

Location: MANHATTAN, RILEY County, KANSAS, 66502

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $6.6 million to FIRELAKE CONSTRUCTION INC for work described as: BIOCONTAINMENT LAB PENETRATION SEALING IMPROVEMENTS Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized lab construction services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks. 4. Project duration of over a year indicates a significant scope of work. 5. Geographic location in Kansas may influence labor and material costs. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially limiting small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $6.6 million for biocontainment lab sealing improvements seems aligned with specialized construction projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment, but the fixed-price nature suggests a defined cost structure. The scope of work, including penetration sealing, implies critical infrastructure upgrades within a research facility, justifying the investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources were excluded, potentially limiting the number of bidders. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes lead to less competitive pricing compared to unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: While the competition was not entirely unrestricted, the 'full and open' aspect suggests an effort to solicit multiple bids. Taxpayers benefit from the competitive process, which generally drives down costs, though the exclusion of certain sources may have slightly reduced the potential for maximum savings.

Public Impact

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) benefits from enhanced biosecurity and operational integrity of its research facilities. The project delivers critical infrastructure improvements to a biocontainment laboratory. The geographic impact is localized to the facility in Kansas. The project will likely involve skilled construction labor, potentially creating short-term employment opportunities in the local area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to exclusion of specific sources.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions impacting project timeline or cost, despite fixed-price contract.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty.
Award to an established construction firm (Firelake Construction Inc.).
Project addresses critical biosecurity infrastructure needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on specialized upgrades for research facilities. The market for high-security and specialized laboratory construction is a niche within the broader construction industry, often characterized by stringent requirements and higher costs due to the complexity and safety protocols involved. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within government or private sector investments in similar research infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements specifically targeting small businesses. This means that larger, established construction firms were likely the primary bidders. The absence of a small business set-aside may limit opportunities for smaller companies to participate directly in this specific contract, though they might be involved as subcontractors if Firelake Construction Inc. chooses to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) contracting officers and project managers. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is generally maintained through federal contract databases, and any specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential issues arising during performance.

Related Government Programs

Biosecurity Infrastructure Upgrades
Federal Laboratory Construction
Department of Agriculture Research Facilities
Commercial Building Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions impacting fixed-price contract.
Need for detailed performance evaluation of contractor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $6.6 million to FIRELAKE CONSTRUCTION INC. BIOCONTAINMENT LAB PENETRATION SEALING IMPROVEMENTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FIRELAKE CONSTRUCTION INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-06-11. End: 2026-06-19.

What is the track record of Firelake Construction Inc. in performing similar government contracts, particularly those involving specialized laboratory environments?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess Firelake Construction Inc.'s track record. Key indicators to examine would include past performance evaluations on similar projects, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and the types of agencies they have previously served. Experience with biosecurity or laboratory construction, especially for agencies like the USDA or other research-intensive federal bodies, would be particularly relevant. Without specific data on their past performance, it's difficult to definitively gauge their suitability beyond the fact they were selected for this current contract.

How does the awarded amount of $6.6 million compare to the typical cost of similar biocontainment lab sealing improvement projects?

Benchmarking this $6.6 million contract requires access to data on comparable projects, which is not readily available in the provided summary. Factors influencing cost include the size and complexity of the lab, the specific sealing technologies required, the geographic location (affecting labor and material costs), and the level of security and containment needed. Generally, specialized laboratory construction and upgrades are significantly more expensive per square foot than standard commercial construction due to stringent requirements for air handling, material resistance, and safety protocols. This contract's value appears substantial, suggesting a project of considerable scope or complexity within the biosecurity domain.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

The primary risks include potential cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise (though mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure), delays in project completion impacting research operations, and performance issues related to the quality of the sealing work. Mitigation strategies include the firm-fixed-price contract, which shifts cost risk to the contractor, and the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' approach, which aims to select a capable contractor. The contract duration of over a year also allows for phased execution and monitoring. The government will likely employ project management and quality assurance oversight throughout the project lifecycle.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers compared to unrestricted full and open competition?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance the benefits of competition with specific agency needs or requirements that might preclude certain types of contractors or technologies. While it is more competitive than a sole-source award, excluding specific sources can limit the pool of potential bidders. This reduction in competition, however slight, may lead to less aggressive pricing than if all potential bidders were allowed to compete. For taxpayers, the effectiveness hinges on whether the exclusions were justified by technical requirements or other valid reasons, and whether sufficient competition remained to drive a fair market price. Without knowing the basis for exclusion, it's difficult to definitively state its impact on value.

What is the historical spending pattern for biosecurity or laboratory infrastructure improvements within the Agricultural Research Service?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for biosecurity and laboratory infrastructure improvements within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) would require a review of past federal procurement data. This would involve identifying similar contracts awarded by ARS over several fiscal years, noting the types of projects (e.g., new construction, upgrades, specific containment levels), the contractors involved, and the total amounts obligated. Such an analysis could reveal trends in investment, average project costs, and the frequency of such specialized procurements. This context would help determine if the current $6.6 million contract represents a typical investment or a significant deviation from historical spending.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Firelake Construction, Inc.

Address: 1011 E 31ST ST, LAWRENCE, KS, 66046

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,604,978

Exercised Options: $6,604,978

Current Obligation: $6,604,978

Actual Outlays: $4,757,675

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 12805B25D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline