GSA awards $95M courthouse construction contract to Brasfield & Gorrie LLC for Huntsville, AL project

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $95,091,587 ($95.1M)

Contractor: Brasfield & Gorrie LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2021-08-10

End Date: 2025-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,512 days

Daily Burn Rate: $62.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AWARD OF THE BRIDGING DESIGN BUILD SERVICES FOR THE US COURTHOUSE, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35801

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $95.1 million to BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC for work described as: AWARD OF THE BRIDGING DESIGN BUILD SERVICES FOR THE US COURTHOUSE, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA Key points: 1. Contract value of $95.1M for design-build services indicates significant investment in federal infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The definitive contract type implies a clear scope and fixed price, reducing cost overrun risks. 4. A 5-bidder pool for this large-scale construction project offers a reasonable level of competition. 5. The project's duration of approximately 4 years highlights the complexity and scale of courthouse construction. 6. Fixed-price contract structure aims to control costs for the taxpayer. 7. The project is situated in Alabama, potentially bringing economic benefits to the local region.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The award of $95.1 million for the Huntsville Courthouse design-build services appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this magnitude. Benchmarking against similar federal courthouse construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract type is a positive indicator for cost control, as it shifts most of the risk to the contractor. The presence of 5 bids suggests that the GSA received multiple proposals, which is a good sign for competitive pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. Five bids were received, indicating a healthy level of interest and competition for this significant construction project. The multiple bids suggest that the General Services Administration (GSA) was able to solicit a competitive environment, which is generally beneficial for achieving fair market prices and selecting the best value proposal.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process, with five bidders, suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that drove down prices and encouraged quality proposals.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the judicial system and the public in Huntsville, Alabama, who will gain access to a new, modern federal courthouse. The project will deliver essential design and construction services for a critical piece of federal infrastructure. Geographic impact is concentrated in Huntsville, Alabama, potentially stimulating local economic activity and job creation. The construction phase will likely involve a significant workforce, including skilled tradespeople and construction management professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or design complexities arise, despite the fixed-price nature.
Long project duration increases exposure to market fluctuations in material costs and labor availability.
Dependence on a single prime contractor for both design and build could lead to coordination challenges.
Ensuring compliance with all federal building codes and accessibility standards throughout the construction process.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition likely resulted in a competitive price and selection of a qualified contractor.
The contractor, Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, has a track record in large-scale construction projects.
The project addresses a clear need for updated federal judicial facilities.
Defined contract period helps in project planning and resource allocation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services, particularly for infrastructure projects like courthouses, federal buildings, and military installations. Spending in this sector is influenced by infrastructure needs, economic conditions, and federal budget allocations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal building projects awarded by agencies like GSA, Department of Defense, or Department of Justice.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contract is with a large firm, Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting will depend on the prime contractor's strategy and GSA's subcontracting goals, which are crucial for ensuring small business participation in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), likely through its Public Buildings Service. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified design and construction within the agreed-upon price and schedule. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, although specific project oversight details may not be fully public.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction
GSA Public Buildings Service Projects
Design-Build Contracts
Commercial Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep despite fixed-price contract.
Long project duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Contractor performance risk over multi-year project.
Adequacy of initial design specifications.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $95.1 million to BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC. AWARD OF THE BRIDGING DESIGN BUILD SERVICES FOR THE US COURTHOUSE, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $95.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-08-10. End: 2025-09-30.

What is the track record of Brasfield & Gorrie LLC on similar federal construction projects?

Brasfield & Gorrie LLC is a well-established construction firm with a significant portfolio of large-scale projects, including federal facilities. A review of their past performance on similar federal courthouse or public building construction projects would be necessary to fully assess their track record. This would involve examining project completion history, any past performance issues or disputes, and client satisfaction feedback. Their experience in design-build delivery methods is also a key factor. While specific project details require deeper investigation, their status as a recipient of this significant GSA contract suggests a level of competence and reliability recognized by the agency.

How does the $95.1 million award compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar courthouse construction projects?

The $95.1 million award for the Huntsville Courthouse design-build services needs to be benchmarked against similar federal courthouse projects to assess value for money. Factors such as square footage, complexity of design, site conditions, and geographic location significantly influence costs. Without specific details on the project's scope (e.g., size in square feet, number of courtrooms, specific security requirements), a precise comparison is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract and the competition among five bidders suggest that GSA aimed for competitive pricing. Further analysis would involve comparing cost per square foot or cost per courtroom against recently awarded federal courthouse projects of comparable scale and complexity.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price design-build contract for the government?

While firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are designed to provide cost certainty, risks remain for the government. For this design-build project, the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise during design or construction, especially if the initial bid was highly competitive. Scope creep, if not managed meticulously, can also lead to change orders that increase the overall cost, despite the FFP nature. Another risk is the contractor's financial stability over the multi-year duration of the project. The government also bears the risk of inadequate initial design specifications, which could lead to costly changes later.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' process likely to be in ensuring the best value for this courthouse project?

The 'full and open competition' process, with five bidders, is generally an effective mechanism for ensuring the best value for federal projects like this courthouse. It maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive bids that reflect fair market value. The competition encourages contractors to submit their most competitive pricing and technically sound proposals to win the contract. The presence of multiple bidders also provides the government with a basis for evaluating different approaches and selecting the proposal that offers the best combination of price, technical merit, and past performance. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the rigor of the evaluation process.

What are the historical spending patterns for federal courthouse construction by the GSA?

Historical spending patterns for federal courthouse construction by the GSA reveal a consistent need for modernization and expansion of judicial facilities across the country. GSA's budget for capital construction and major repairs fluctuates annually based on appropriations and infrastructure priorities. Over the past decade, GSA has undertaken numerous design-build and traditional design-bid-build projects for courthouses, courthouses annexes, and related judicial facilities. Spending levels are influenced by factors such as the age of existing courthouses, security requirements, judicial caseloads, and the availability of federal funding. Analyzing historical data would show trends in contract values, project durations, and the prevalence of different contract types used for these complex projects.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: 47PE0320R0009

Offers Received: 5

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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $95,091,587

Exercised Options: $95,091,587

Current Obligation: $95,091,587

Actual Outlays: $94,980,962

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline