GSA awards $5.3M contract for architectural and engineering services in Birmingham, AL

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $533,575 ($533.6K)

Contractor: Belinda Stewart Architects, PA

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2024-09-02

End Date: 2026-05-31

Contract Duration: 636 days

Daily Burn Rate: $839/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: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOW DATED 11 MARCH 2024. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE IS 1729 5TH AVE. NORTH BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203-2000.

Place of Performance

Location: EUPORA, WEBSTER County, MISSISSIPPI, 39744

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $533,575.09 to BELINDA STEWART ARCHITECTS, PA for work described as: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOW DATED 11 MARCH 2024. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE IS 1729 5TH AVE. NORTH BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203-2000. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on architectural and engineering services, a critical component of public infrastructure development. 2. The contract duration of 636 days suggests a moderately complex project requiring sustained effort. 3. Performance location in Birmingham, AL, indicates a focus on regional development and infrastructure needs. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs by establishing a set price upfront. 5. This award falls under the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service, responsible for federal building management.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $5.3 million for architectural and engineering services over approximately 21 months appears within a reasonable range for such projects. Benchmarking against similar GSA contracts for A&E services in the Southeast region would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to manage cost certainty, but the ultimate value depends on the scope and complexity of the services delivered and the contractor's efficiency.

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 all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and quality for the government. The 'exclusion of sources' phrasing might suggest specific criteria were applied during the initial screening or that certain pre-qualified vendors were invited to bid.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is generally favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive bids and thus potentially lower prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring architectural and engineering expertise for their facilities. Services delivered will likely include design, planning, and oversight for construction or renovation projects. The geographic impact is centered in Birmingham, Alabama, supporting local infrastructure and development. The contract may indirectly support the local architecture and engineering workforce in the Birmingham area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics or quality assurance details in the provided data.
Potential for scope creep in architectural and engineering projects if not tightly managed.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant duration could pose a risk if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Awarded by the General Services Administration, an agency with established procurement processes.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.

Sector Analysis

The architectural and engineering services sector is a vital part of the construction and public works industry. This contract falls within the broader engineering services (NAICS 541330) category. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous firms ranging from small specialized businesses to large multinational corporations. Government contracts, particularly those managed by the GSA, represent a significant portion of the demand, supporting infrastructure development and facility management across the nation. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar federal A&E contracts would require analyzing project scope, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Belinda Stewart Architects, PA, is likely not a small business for the purpose of this specific contract award. There is no information on subcontracting plans, so the impact on the small business ecosystem is currently unknown. Future analysis could explore if the prime contractor intends to utilize small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) generally has robust oversight mechanisms for its contracts, including the Public Buildings Service. Oversight would typically involve contract officers, project managers, and potentially quality assurance specialists to monitor performance, adherence to scope, and compliance with terms. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract, which incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within budget. Transparency is usually facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Federal Buildings Fund
Architectural and Engineering Services Contracts
Public Infrastructure Projects
General Services Administration Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep
Contractor performance risk
Schedule delay risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $533,575.09 to BELINDA STEWART ARCHITECTS, PA. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOW DATED 11 MARCH 2024. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE IS 1729 5TH AVE. NORTH BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203-2000.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BELINDA STEWART ARCHITECTS, PA.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $533,575.09.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-09-02. End: 2026-05-31.

What is the track record of Belinda Stewart Architects, PA with the federal government?

Information regarding Belinda Stewart Architects, PA's specific track record with the federal government is not detailed in the provided data. However, their selection by the General Services Administration for this contract suggests they meet certain qualification standards. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine their past federal contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A review of their past performance on similar architectural and engineering projects, particularly those with the GSA or other federal agencies, would be crucial for understanding their reliability and capability.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar architectural and engineering services contracts awarded by the GSA?

The contract value of $5.3 million for approximately 636 days (about 21 months) of architectural and engineering services is a moderate-sized award. To benchmark effectively, we would need to compare it against contracts with similar scopes of work, complexity, and geographic locations. For instance, comparing it to other GSA contracts for building design, renovation planning, or project management services in the Southeast region would be relevant. Factors such as the specific type of facility (e.g., office building, courthouse), the age and condition of the existing structure, and the required level of detail in the architectural and engineering plans would influence the cost. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts with specific project parameters, a precise comparison is difficult, but the amount appears reasonable for a project of this nature.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks for this contract include potential scope creep, where the project's requirements expand beyond the initial agreement, leading to cost overruns and schedule delays. Another risk is the contractor's performance quality; subpar architectural or engineering work could necessitate costly rework or compromise the functionality and safety of the final facility. Schedule delays, whether due to contractor performance, unforeseen site conditions, or government-related issues, also pose a risk. Mitigation strategies likely include a well-defined Statement of Work (SOW), rigorous oversight by GSA contract managers, clear communication protocols, and the firm-fixed-price contract type, which incentivizes the contractor to manage costs and adhere to the schedule. Regular progress reviews and performance monitoring are essential.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad market access with specific requirements. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it maximizes the potential for competitive pricing and innovation, which benefits taxpayers. The 'exclusion of sources' aspect suggests that certain criteria were used to narrow the field initially, perhaps based on pre-qualification or specific technical capabilities. If this exclusion process is justified and does not unduly limit competition, it can lead to more efficient procurements by focusing on capable vendors. However, if the exclusion criteria are too restrictive or not clearly justified, it could inadvertently limit competition and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers. The effectiveness hinges on the transparency and reasonableness of the source exclusion process.

What is the historical spending pattern for architectural and engineering services by the General Services Administration?

The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major procurer of architectural and engineering (A&E) services, consistently awarding billions of dollars annually to support its vast portfolio of federal buildings and real estate. Historical spending patterns show a significant and ongoing investment in facility design, renovation, repair, and maintenance. The GSA's spending in this category fluctuates based on infrastructure needs, federal building modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. They utilize various contract vehicles, including indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts and task orders like this one, to procure A&E services across different regions and for diverse project types. Analyzing GSA's historical spending data reveals a sustained demand for these professional services, underscoring their importance in maintaining and upgrading federal infrastructure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering 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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 47PE0324R0008

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 61 N DUNN ST, EUPORA, MS, 39744

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $533,575

Exercised Options: $533,575

Current Obligation: $533,575

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47PE0119D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline