Commerce awards $3.7M architectural services contract to Jones Studio Inc. for NOAA facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,745,870 ($3.7M)

Contractor: Jones Studio Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2023-07-25

End Date: 2026-07-24

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AE DESIGN SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: MANCHESTER, KITSAP County, WASHINGTON, 98353

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $3.7 million to JONES STUDIO INC for work described as: AE DESIGN SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for architectural services of this duration and scope. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. Fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost overrun risks. 4. Contract duration of three years allows for sustained support. 5. Geographic location in Washington state may indicate focus on regional facilities. 6. The contract is for architectural services, a critical component of infrastructure development.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $3.7 million for three years of architectural services seems aligned with industry standards for similar government projects. Benchmarking against other architectural contracts awarded by NOAA or the Department of Commerce for facility design and management would provide further context. The fixed-price nature of the contract is a positive indicator for cost control, assuming the scope of work is well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that the solicitation was broadly advertised, and multiple bids were likely considered. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this procurement method generally fosters price discovery and encourages competitive pricing by allowing all responsible sources to participate.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facilities requiring architectural services. Services delivered include architectural design, planning, and potentially oversight for NOAA infrastructure projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in Washington state, where the contractor is located and potentially where the facilities are situated. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for architects, designers, and support staff within Jones Studio Inc. and potentially for construction workers if the designs lead to new builds or renovations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics or deliverables in the provided data.
Potential for scope creep if project requirements are not clearly defined upfront.
Dependence on a single contractor for the full duration could pose a risk if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract structure incentivizes cost efficiency.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Contractor's location in Washington may facilitate easier communication and site visits for regional projects.

Sector Analysis

Architectural services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by specialized expertise and project-based work. Government contracts for architectural services are common, supporting the maintenance, renovation, and construction of federal facilities across various agencies. The market size for government architectural services is substantial, driven by ongoing infrastructure needs and modernization efforts.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from set-aside requirements. However, the prime contractor, Jones Studio Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors if it aligns with their project needs and procurement strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver services within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is facilitated through the federal procurement data system, where contract awards are publicly reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

NOAA Facility Modernization Projects
Federal Building Design and Construction
Architectural and Engineering Services Contracts
Department of Commerce Infrastructure Spending

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep in fixed-price contracts.
Need for clear performance metrics.
Justification for 'exclusion of sources' requires scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $3.7 million to JONES STUDIO INC. AE DESIGN SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JONES STUDIO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-07-25. End: 2026-07-24.

What is the track record of Jones Studio Inc. in performing similar government contracts, particularly with NOAA or the Department of Commerce?

Assessing the track record of Jones Studio Inc. requires a deeper dive into federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. Specifically, one would look for past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported disputes or terminations. Information on their experience with similar architectural services, project sizes, and client agencies (especially NOAA and Commerce) would be crucial. A history of successful project completion, adherence to schedules and budgets, and positive past performance reviews would indicate a lower risk. Conversely, a pattern of issues could signal potential performance concerns for this new contract.

How does the awarded amount of $3.7 million compare to the estimated cost or benchmark for similar architectural services for NOAA facilities?

To benchmark the $3.7 million award, one would need to compare it against similar contracts for architectural services awarded by NOAA or other federal agencies for comparable facility types and scopes of work. This involves analyzing contract data for projects of similar size (square footage, complexity), duration, and geographic location. Factors such as the specific services required (e.g., design, engineering, project management) and the type of facility (e.g., laboratory, office, research center) are critical. If this contract's value falls within the typical range for such services, it suggests good value. Significant deviations, either higher or lower, would warrant further investigation into the underlying reasons, such as unique project requirements or market conditions.

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

While fixed-price contracts are generally favored for cost control, risks can still arise. A primary risk is the potential for scope creep, where the requirements expand beyond the initial agreement, potentially leading to disputes or the need for contract modifications. Another risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality to maintain profitability if the initial pricing was too aggressive. Mitigation strategies typically include a very clearly defined Statement of Work (SOW), robust change management processes to evaluate and approve any scope adjustments, and regular performance monitoring by the government to ensure quality standards are met. Strong communication channels between the agency and the contractor are also vital.

What is the expected impact of these architectural services on NOAA's operational effectiveness or infrastructure capabilities?

The impact of these architectural services on NOAA's operational effectiveness and infrastructure capabilities depends heavily on the specific facilities being addressed. If the contract supports the design of new, state-of-the-art research facilities, it could significantly enhance NOAA's scientific research capacity, data collection, and operational efficiency. Conversely, if it involves renovations or upgrades to existing infrastructure, the impact might be focused on improving safety, modernizing outdated systems, or ensuring compliance with current building codes and environmental standards. A clear understanding of the project's objectives is necessary to fully assess the operational benefits.

How has federal spending on architectural services for agencies like NOAA trended over the past five years?

Analyzing federal spending trends on architectural services for agencies like NOAA over the past five years would involve examining historical contract data. This would likely reveal fluctuations based on agency budget appropriations, infrastructure investment priorities, and specific modernization or construction initiatives. Generally, there's a consistent need for architectural services to maintain and upgrade federal facilities. Trends might show an increase during periods of significant infrastructure spending initiatives or a decrease during fiscal austerity. Understanding these patterns provides context for the current contract's value and the agency's ongoing commitment to its physical assets.

What are the implications of the 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the contract's competition type?

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain potential sources were specifically excluded from bidding. This exclusion must be justified based on specific criteria, such as national security, unique capabilities, or prior work on the project. While it's still a form of open competition, the exclusion narrows the field of potential bidders compared to a truly unrestricted 'full and open' competition. The justification for exclusion is critical to ensure fairness and prevent undue restriction of competition, which could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers if the exclusion was not warranted.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Architectural Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Solicitation ID: 1305M423RNAAJ0008

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 205 S WILSON ST, TEMPE, AZ, 85281

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,783,482

Exercised Options: $3,745,870

Current Obligation: $3,745,870

Actual Outlays: $2,779,580

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline