FEMA awards $55.3M for Gridley Group Site Construction, with MLU Services, LLC as prime

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $55,283,604 ($55.3M)

Contractor: MLU Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2019-05-07

End Date: 2019-08-20

Contract Duration: 105 days

Daily Burn Rate: $526.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: GRIDLEY GROUP SITE CONSTRUCTION - DR4407CA

Place of Performance

Location: SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO County, CALIFORNIA, 95827

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $55.3 million to MLU SERVICES, LLC for work described as: GRIDLEY GROUP SITE CONSTRUCTION - DR4407CA Key points: 1. Contract value of $55.3M for site construction indicates significant investment in infrastructure. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. A short performance period of 105 days points to a focused, time-sensitive project. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability. 5. The project falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a broad but essential sector. 6. The award to MLU Services, LLC highlights a specific contractor's role in federal construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $55.3 million for site construction is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar FEMA construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to manage costs, but without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar site preparation and construction, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is optimal. The award amount itself does not inherently indicate over or under-spending without further context on the scope and complexity of the Gridley Group site.

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'. This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, there was a specific exclusion of certain sources prior to the main competition. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated in the provided data, but the 'full and open' designation generally implies multiple interested parties. This level of competition is typically favorable for price discovery and achieving competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices. Full and open competition, even with prior exclusions, suggests a robust process that likely resulted in a fair market price for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the residents or entities that will utilize the Gridley Group site once construction is complete. The services delivered include site construction, which could encompass preparation, foundation work, and building of facilities. The geographic impact is localized to the Gridley Group site in California. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Dependence on MLU Services, LLC's capacity and performance to meet the tight deadline.
Risk of scope creep if project requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
Potential delays due to permitting or regulatory hurdles not fully anticipated.
Quality control challenges in ensuring construction meets all federal standards.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive market was leveraged.
Clear award to a specific contractor simplifies accountability.
Defined performance period helps manage project timeline.
FEMA's involvement indicates a potentially critical government need.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the US economy, encompassing a wide range of activities from residential building to large-scale infrastructure projects. Federal spending in this sector often supports critical government functions, disaster recovery, or facility upgrades. This contract for site construction fits within the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction, which includes a variety of non-residential structures. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other federal construction contracts of similar scale and scope, particularly those managed by agencies like FEMA for site development or facility erection.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary competition was not geared towards small businesses. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The lack of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for small businesses would likely arise through subcontracting opportunities offered by the prime contractor, MLU Services, LLC, rather than through direct contract awards.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to complete the work for a set price. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal contract databases where award information is published. The specific Inspector General jurisdiction would likely be that of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, which oversees FEMA.

Related Government Programs

Disaster Recovery Infrastructure Projects
Federal Building Construction
Homeland Security Facilities
Emergency Management Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting cost and schedule.
Short performance period increases schedule risk.
Contractor performance and capacity are critical factors.
Need for clear scope definition to prevent disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $55.3 million to MLU SERVICES, LLC. GRIDLEY GROUP SITE CONSTRUCTION - DR4407CA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MLU SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $55.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-05-07. End: 2019-08-20.

What is the track record of MLU Services, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with FEMA?

To assess MLU Services, LLC's track record, a detailed review of their past federal contract awards would be necessary. This would involve examining contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS to identify previous awards, their values, performance ratings, and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. Specifically for FEMA, understanding their experience with disaster recovery-related construction or site development projects would be crucial. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project completion would indicate reliability, while a pattern of issues might raise concerns about their capacity to handle the Gridley Group site construction effectively. Without specific performance data on MLU Services, LLC, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of their capabilities.

How does the $55.3 million contract value compare to similar FEMA site construction projects?

Benchmarking the $55.3 million contract value requires comparing it to similar Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) projects. This involves identifying other FEMA contracts for site construction, land preparation, or facility development of comparable scope, size, and complexity. Factors such as geographic location, specific site conditions (e.g., terrain, existing infrastructure), and the type of facilities being constructed are critical for a meaningful comparison. If similar projects have been awarded for significantly less, it might suggest this contract's price is higher than average. Conversely, if other comparable projects have higher price tags, it could indicate that $55.3 million is within a reasonable range, especially considering potential regional cost variations or specific project requirements. A thorough analysis would necessitate access to detailed project scopes and award histories.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific site construction contract?

The primary risks associated with this site construction contract include potential unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil instability, underground utilities, environmental hazards) that could lead to cost overruns or delays, despite the firm fixed-price nature. The short performance period of 105 days presents a significant schedule risk, requiring efficient project management and execution to avoid delays. Contractor performance risk is also present; MLU Services, LLC's capacity, experience, and resource availability are critical. Furthermore, risks related to scope definition and management are inherent in any construction project; any ambiguity or changes could lead to disputes or increased costs. Finally, regulatory and permitting compliance risks, while typically managed by the contractor, can impact timelines and budgets if not handled proactively.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method for this type of project?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements or limitations. For a site construction project, this method could be effective if certain pre-qualification criteria were necessary for potential bidders (e.g., specific security clearances, specialized equipment, or prior experience with sensitive sites) that led to the initial exclusion. It allows for a wide range of qualified contractors to bid, fostering price competition. However, the 'exclusion of sources' aspect needs careful justification to ensure it doesn't unduly limit competition or appear to favor specific entities without a clear, objective rationale. If the exclusions were minimal and the subsequent competition robust, it can be an effective way to ensure both quality and competitive pricing.

What is the historical spending pattern for Gridley Group site construction or similar FEMA projects?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for Gridley Group site construction or similar FEMA projects requires examining past contract awards for this specific site or comparable FEMA infrastructure initiatives. This would involve looking at previous contracts awarded for the Gridley Group site, if any, and their associated costs and scopes. For similar FEMA projects, one would investigate spending trends in disaster preparedness infrastructure, temporary housing site development, or permanent facility construction over several fiscal years. Understanding these patterns can reveal whether spending on such projects is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and whether FEMA's approach to contracting for construction services has evolved. It also helps contextualize the current $55.3 million award within FEMA's broader budget and project execution history.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT › INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 573 HAWTHORNE AVE, ATHENS, GA, 30606

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority 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: $55,283,604

Exercised Options: $55,283,604

Current Obligation: $55,283,604

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 70FB8018D00000013

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline