Monarch Construction Company awarded $14.5M for EPA research center annex construction

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,517,820 ($14.5M)

Contractor: Monarch Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2005-09-20

End Date: 2008-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,106 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCT ANNEX 2 ADDITIONS AT THE U.S. EPA A.W. BREIDENBACH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, CINCINNATI, OHIO.

Place of Performance

Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45212

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $14.5 million to MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCT ANNEX 2 ADDITIONS AT THE U.S. EPA A.W. BREIDENBACH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, CINCINNATI, OHIO. Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a commercial building construction project of this scale. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of approximately three years is typical for construction. 5. Geographic concentration in Ohio may indicate regional contractor strengths. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting a focus on larger firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $14.5 million for constructing an annex at the EPA's research center seems within the expected range for commercial building construction. Benchmarking against similar government or private sector projects of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure is standard for construction and helps control costs for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With three bidders participating, the competition level suggests a degree of market interest. This process is designed to foster price discovery and potentially lead to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by promoting a wider range of bids, which can drive down costs and ensure the government receives fair market value for its investments.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which gains expanded research facilities. The project delivers new physical infrastructure for scientific research and development. The geographic impact is concentrated in Cincinnati, Ohio, potentially creating local construction jobs. The construction workforce in the Cincinnati area would likely benefit from employment opportunities during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract scope is not meticulously managed.
Delays in construction could impact the EPA's research timelines.
Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the annex meets research facility standards.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
The contractor, Monarch Construction Company, is likely experienced in commercial construction.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Government spending on facilities and infrastructure is a key driver in this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal or state contracts for similar research facility or laboratory construction projects, considering factors like square footage, specialized equipment integration, and location.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger firm, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless Monarch Construction Company actively engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction contract would typically be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified annex within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific oversight reports or IG involvement would depend on project performance and any identified issues.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Environmental Research Facilities
EPA Capital Investments
Construction Services

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep in fixed-price contracts.
Construction project delays.
Quality assurance during construction.
Accurate cost estimation for complex facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $14.5 million to MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. CONSTRUCT ANNEX 2 ADDITIONS AT THE U.S. EPA A.W. BREIDENBACH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, CINCINNATI, OHIO.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MONARCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-20. End: 2008-09-30.

What is Monarch Construction Company's track record with federal contracts, particularly for research facilities?

A comprehensive review of Monarch Construction Company's federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining past performance on similar projects, including their experience with constructing specialized facilities like research centers. Key indicators would include on-time and on-budget delivery, quality of work, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. While the provided data indicates they were awarded this $14.5 million contract, further research into their past performance ratings and any documented successes or failures on federal projects is crucial for a complete understanding of their capabilities and reliability in executing this EPA annex construction.

How does the $14.5 million contract value compare to similar EPA research facility construction projects?

To benchmark the $14.5 million contract value, one would need to compare it against similar construction projects undertaken by the EPA or other federal agencies for research facilities. Factors such as square footage, specialized laboratory requirements (e.g., ventilation, safety features), geographic location (influencing labor and material costs), and the specific year of award are critical for a fair comparison. Without access to a database of comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively state if this value represents excellent, fair, or questionable value. However, for a significant annex addition to an existing research center, $14.5 million appears to be within a plausible range for a project of this nature, assuming a well-defined scope and standard construction requirements.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract?

The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract, while generally favorable to the government, lie in potential scope creep and unforeseen site conditions. If the project scope is not meticulously defined and managed, change orders could increase the total cost. Unforeseen geological issues, hazardous materials discovery, or complex site preparation needs not anticipated during the bidding phase could also lead to cost increases or delays, potentially requiring contract modifications. The contractor bears the risk of cost overruns due to inefficient performance or underestimation, but significant unforeseen issues could still impact the government through change requests or schedule delays.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring competitive pricing for construction projects of this type?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring competitive pricing for construction projects. By allowing all responsible contractors to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving multiple competitive bids. This competitive pressure incentivizes contractors to submit their most favorable pricing and efficient project plans to win the contract. The presence of three bidders in this case suggests a reasonable level of competition, which should have contributed to price discovery and a fair market price for the EPA. However, the effectiveness can be influenced by market conditions, the project's complexity, and the clarity of the solicitation documents.

What is the historical spending pattern for construction at EPA research centers?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for construction at EPA research centers would require access to detailed federal procurement data over several fiscal years. This analysis would reveal trends in contract values, types of construction (new builds, renovations, annexes), average contract durations, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-plus). Understanding these patterns can help contextualize the $14.5 million award for the Breidenbach Environmental Research Center annex. For instance, if historical data shows similar annexes costing in the $10-20 million range, this award would align with past spending. Conversely, significant deviations might warrant further investigation into the specific project requirements or market factors.

What are the implications of the contract duration (1106 days) for project management and cost control?

A contract duration of 1106 days, approximately three years, for constructing an annex is a substantial timeframe. This extended duration implies a complex project with significant scope, potentially involving multiple phases, specialized construction techniques, or integration of complex research equipment. From a project management perspective, it necessitates robust scheduling, resource allocation, and risk management over an extended period. For cost control, a longer duration can introduce risks related to inflation of material and labor costs, although the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract shifts much of this risk to the contractor. It also means the EPA's capital investment is tied up for a longer period before the facility becomes operational.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: PRCI0511063

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1654 SHERMAN AVE., CINCINNATI, OH, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,519,674

Exercised Options: $14,519,674

Current Obligation: $14,517,820

Timeline