USDA's Ames Modernization Project awarded to Gilbane Building Company for $33.2M, facing low participation in key meetings

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,221,902 ($33.2M)

Contractor: Gilbane Building Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2005-10-25

End Date: 2009-02-20

Contract Duration: 1,214 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.4K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN KICK OFF MEETING LOW CONTAINMENT LARGE ANIMAL FACILITY AMES MODERNIZATION PROJECT, PRE-CON AND CMC CONSTRUCTION OF LCLAF AND NUE

Place of Performance

Location: AMES, STORY County, IOWA, 50010

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $33.2 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for work described as: PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN KICK OFF MEETING LOW CONTAINMENT LARGE ANIMAL FACILITY AMES MODERNIZATION PROJECT, PRE-CON AND CMC CONSTRUCTION OF LCLAF AND NUE Key points: 1. The contract's value of $33.2 million for a large animal facility modernization appears substantial, requiring careful scrutiny of cost-effectiveness. 2. As a non-competitive delivery order, the absence of a broad bidding process raises questions about potential price inflation and value for money. 3. Low participation in the design kick-off meeting is a significant risk indicator, potentially leading to project delays, cost overruns, and scope creep. 4. The project's focus on a containment large animal facility suggests specialized construction needs and potential risks associated with bio-safety and environmental controls. 5. The contract's duration of over 1200 days indicates a long-term commitment, necessitating ongoing performance monitoring. 6. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the success hinges on accurate initial scope definition and effective change order management.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $33.2 million for the Ames Modernization Project is a significant investment. Without comparable project data or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively benchmark its value. However, the non-competitive nature of the award and reported low participation in critical design meetings suggest potential inefficiencies that could inflate costs or reduce overall value. The firm-fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty, but the risks associated with scope definition and execution in specialized facilities need careful management to ensure value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach limits the opportunity for multiple contractors to bid, potentially reducing price discovery and the likelihood of securing the most competitive pricing. The rationale for a sole-source award, if any, is not detailed here, but it typically implies unique capabilities or urgent needs. The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the cost savings that a competitive bidding process could have generated.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium compared to what could have been achieved through a more open bidding process. This limits the government's ability to leverage market forces for cost savings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the researchers and staff at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) who will utilize the modernized large animal facility. The project delivers essential infrastructure upgrades for critical animal research, potentially enhancing scientific discovery and agricultural innovation. The geographic impact is localized to Ames, Iowa, where the facility is located, but the research outcomes could have national or international implications. The construction phase will likely involve a workforce of skilled tradespeople and construction professionals in the Ames area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Low participation in the design kick-off meeting indicates potential communication breakdowns or contractor disengagement early in the project lifecycle.
The non-competitive award limits transparency and potentially reduces cost-effectiveness, as market competition was not leveraged.
The long duration of the contract (over 3 years) increases the risk of scope creep, cost escalation due to unforeseen issues, and contractor performance degradation over time.
Specialized containment facilities for large animals present unique construction challenges and risks related to safety, environmental compliance, and operational effectiveness.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined and managed.
The contract is awarded to Gilbane Building Company, a known entity in the construction industry, suggesting some level of established capability.
The project addresses a critical need for infrastructure modernization within the Agricultural Research Service, supporting vital research functions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for specialized facilities. The market for large-scale, specialized construction projects like containment animal facilities is often characterized by a limited number of experienced contractors. Benchmarking requires comparison to similar government or private sector projects involving bio-containment and large animal housing, which can be difficult to find publicly. The total federal spending on construction is vast, but this specific niche represents a smaller, highly technical segment.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a factor, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within this award. This means the contract did not actively promote small business involvement, and its impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Agriculture's contracting officers and potentially the Agricultural Research Service's program managers. Given the project's nature and duration, regular progress reviews, site inspections, and financial audits would be expected. The contract does not specify an Inspector General's involvement, but the USDA OIG could investigate any reported fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature and lack of readily available public details on performance.

Related Government Programs

USDA Research Facilities Modernization
Large Animal Research Infrastructure
Bio-containment Facility Construction
Federal Building and Construction Contracts
Agricultural Research Service Capital Investments

Risk Flags

Low Design Meeting Participation
Non-Competitive Award
Specialized Facility Risks
Long Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $33.2 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY. PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN KICK OFF MEETING LOW CONTAINMENT LARGE ANIMAL FACILITY AMES MODERNIZATION PROJECT, PRE-CON AND CMC CONSTRUCTION OF LCLAF AND NUE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-10-25. End: 2009-02-20.

What specific reasons led to the non-competitive award of this delivery order to Gilbane Building Company?

The provided data indicates this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER' (CT: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER, AW: DO). Without further documentation or justification from the awarding agency (Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service), the precise reasons for the sole-source award remain unclear. Typically, non-competitive awards are justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific program requirements where competition is not feasible or practical. The data does not provide this justification, making it impossible to assess if the non-competitive approach was appropriate or cost-effective for taxpayers.

How does the reported low participation in the design kick-off meeting impact the project's risk profile and potential cost implications?

Low participation in a critical design kick-off meeting is a significant red flag for project management. It suggests potential issues with communication, contractor engagement, or alignment on project scope and objectives from the outset. This can lead to several negative consequences: increased risk of design errors or omissions, delays as clarifications are sought later, scope creep as requirements are misunderstood or missed, and ultimately, cost overruns. For a specialized facility like a containment large animal facility, accurate and complete design is paramount. Any deficiencies stemming from poor initial engagement could necessitate costly rework or lead to operational inefficiencies post-construction, impacting the overall value for money.

What are the potential risks associated with constructing a 'Large Containment Animal Facility' and how might they affect this contract?

Constructing a 'Large Containment Animal Facility' involves significant risks beyond standard construction. These include stringent bio-safety and bio-security requirements, complex HVAC and waste management systems to prevent pathogen escape, specialized animal housing and handling infrastructure, and compliance with numerous environmental and health regulations. Failure in any of these areas can lead to costly remediation, operational shutdowns, reputational damage, and potential public health or environmental hazards. For this contract, these specialized requirements increase the complexity of design and execution, demanding highly experienced contractors and rigorous oversight. The risk of unforeseen challenges related to containment protocols or specialized equipment integration is elevated, potentially impacting schedule and budget.

Given the firm-fixed-price contract type, what are the primary mechanisms for controlling costs and managing scope changes?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract aims to provide cost certainty by obligating the contractor to complete the work for a predetermined price. However, cost control and scope management are critical. For this contract, cost control relies heavily on the initial accuracy and completeness of the project scope defined in the contract documents. Any deviations or additions to this scope would typically require formal change orders, which must be carefully negotiated and approved by the government. The effectiveness of the FFP structure hinges on robust contract administration, diligent oversight of contractor performance, and a clear process for managing any necessary modifications to prevent uncontrolled scope creep and associated cost increases. The low participation in the design phase could undermine the initial scope definition, increasing the likelihood of costly change orders.

What is the historical spending context for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on facility modernization projects of this scale?

The provided data does not include historical spending information for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on facility modernization projects. To provide context, one would need to analyze past ARS capital improvement budgets, previous construction contracts awarded for similar facilities (e.g., research labs, animal housing), and the average cost per square foot or per project for such endeavors. Without this data, it's challenging to determine if the $33.2 million award represents a typical, high, or low investment for a project of this nature within ARS. Understanding historical spending patterns is crucial for assessing value for money and identifying potential trends in cost escalation or efficiency.

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: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc. (UEI: 022726165)

Address: 8550 W BRYN MAWR AVE #500, CHICAGO, IL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,221,902

Exercised Options: $33,221,902

Current Obligation: $33,221,902

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 503K1522600

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline