GSA awards $10.6M for Alexandria Bay Land Port of Entry modernization, a 7-year project
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,645,234 ($10.6M)
Contractor: Gilbane Building Company
Awarding Agency: General Services Administration
Start Date: 2005-05-25
End Date: 2023-06-30
Contract Duration: 6,610 days
Daily Burn Rate: $1.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 7
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (CM) SERVICES FOR THE FACILITY WIDE MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE US LAND PORT OF ENTRY, ALEXANDRIA BAY, NY
Place of Performance
Location: ALEXANDRIA BAY, JEFFERSON County, NEW YORK, 13607
State: New York Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
General Services Administration obligated $10.6 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (CM) SERVICES FOR THE FACILITY WIDE MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE US LAND PORT OF ENTRY, ALEXANDRIA BAY, NY Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in critical border infrastructure. 2. The project duration of over 5 years suggests a complex and extensive scope of work. 3. The use of a Firm Fixed Price contract indicates a defined cost structure, potentially limiting cost overruns. 4. The project's location in New York highlights its importance for regional trade and security. 5. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $10.6 million for construction management services for a land port of entry modernization appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration. Without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale border infrastructure projects, a direct comparison is difficult. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the pricing was determined upfront and is intended to be adhered to, which is a positive indicator for value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 7 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant project. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive proposals.
Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more competitive price for taxpayers, as multiple firms vied for the contract. This process helps ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies responsible for border security and trade facilitation, ensuring modernized facilities. The services delivered include construction management for the modernization and expansion of a key land port of entry. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alexandria Bay, New York, affecting regional trade flows and local employment. Workforce implications include potential job creation in construction, engineering, and related fields during the project's lifecycle.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of explicit small business set-aside may limit direct participation for small businesses.
- The long duration of the contract could present challenges for smaller, agile firms to compete on future phases or related work.
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition allows for a wide range of potential contractors, including those with specialized expertise.
- The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty, benefiting efficient resource allocation.
Sector Analysis
The construction management sector is characterized by a wide range of firms, from large global players to smaller specialized companies. This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sub-sector. The market for large-scale federal infrastructure projects is competitive, with significant demand driven by modernization needs across various government agencies. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar port of entry projects is challenging due to unique site-specific requirements and varying scopes.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no specific subcontracting goals were mandated. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses may primarily arise through the prime contractor's procurement practices. Further inquiry into Gilbane Building Company's subcontracting plan would be necessary to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
The General Services Administration (GSA) typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its construction projects, including regular site inspections, progress reporting, and financial reviews. The Public Buildings Service, responsible for this contract, is known for its project management standards. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific details of ongoing oversight may not be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- Border Infrastructure Modernization Projects
- Federal Port of Entry Construction
- GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
- Large-Scale Construction Management Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns despite firm fixed-price contract due to project duration.
- Risk of schedule delays due to complex construction environment and potential external factors.
- Limited visibility into small business subcontracting opportunities.
- Dependence on contractor's performance for quality and safety outcomes.
Tags
construction, general-services-administration, alexandria-bay, new-york, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, infrastructure, border-security, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
General Services Administration awarded $10.6 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (CM) SERVICES FOR THE FACILITY WIDE MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE US LAND PORT OF ENTRY, ALEXANDRIA BAY, NY
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $10.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2005-05-25. End: 2023-06-30.
What is the track record of Gilbane Building Company on similar federal construction management contracts?
Gilbane Building Company has a substantial track record with federal agencies, including the General Services Administration (GSA). They have managed numerous large-scale construction and renovation projects across various sectors, including government facilities, military installations, and transportation infrastructure. Their experience often includes complex projects with significant budgets and long durations, similar to the Alexandria Bay Land Port of Entry modernization. A review of their past performance on federal contracts, including any past performance evaluations or awards/debarments, would provide further insight into their capabilities and reliability for this specific project. Their history suggests they are a capable contractor for projects of this magnitude.
How does the cost per square foot or per project phase compare to similar land port of entry modernization projects?
Directly comparing the cost per square foot or per project phase for the Alexandria Bay Land Port of Entry modernization to similar projects is challenging without detailed project specifications and cost breakdowns. Land port of entry projects are highly site-specific, influenced by factors such as geographic location, security requirements, existing infrastructure, and the scope of modernization (e.g., new construction vs. renovation). The total contract value of $10.6 million over approximately 6.6 years (6610 days) suggests a phased approach. To perform a robust benchmark, one would need to identify comparable projects in terms of size, complexity, and function, and then normalize costs based on inflation, regional labor rates, and specific project scope elements. Publicly available data on such granular comparisons is often limited.
What are the primary risks associated with a construction management contract of this duration and scale?
The primary risks associated with a construction management contract of this duration (over 5 years) and scale include potential cost escalation due to unforeseen site conditions or material price fluctuations, despite the firm fixed-price structure. Schedule delays are also a significant risk, stemming from weather, labor availability, supply chain disruptions, or complex permitting processes. Contractor performance risk, including quality control and adherence to safety standards, is another key concern. Furthermore, changes in federal requirements or funding availability during the project lifecycle could impact scope and execution. Effective risk mitigation strategies, including robust contract management, contingency planning, and clear communication protocols, are crucial for success.
How effective are firm fixed-price contracts in managing costs for large federal construction projects?
Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally considered effective in managing costs for large federal construction projects when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are understood. In an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns, providing the government with cost certainty. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs and improve efficiency. However, for highly complex or long-duration projects where unforeseen issues are more likely, an FFP contract can sometimes lead to contractors incorporating higher contingency into their bids, potentially increasing the initial price. It can also disincentivize scope changes requested by the government, as these often require contract modifications and price adjustments. For this project, the FFP structure likely provided a predictable budget ceiling.
What is the historical spending pattern for construction management services at U.S. Land Ports of Entry?
Historical spending on construction management services for U.S. Land Ports of Entry reflects a consistent need for infrastructure upgrades and modernization. Agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regularly invest in these facilities to enhance security, improve efficiency, and accommodate increased trade volumes. Spending patterns are often driven by federal infrastructure initiatives, appropriations cycles, and the aging condition of existing ports. While specific aggregate historical spending data for CM services at ports of entry is not readily available in a consolidated format, individual contract awards, such as this one, indicate significant and ongoing investment in this critical sector. The trend is generally towards modernization and technological integration.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 7
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc.
Address: 7 JACKSON WALKWAY, PROVIDENCE, RI, 02903
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $10,645,234
Exercised Options: $10,645,234
Current Obligation: $10,645,234
Actual Outlays: $1,540,909
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2005-05-25
Current End Date: 2023-06-30
Potential End Date: 2023-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2023-05-31
More Contracts from Gilbane Building Company
- Arra::yes::arra TAS::75 0839::TAS -- Recovery ACT -- Cmc@risk Services to Renovate of Building 10 Wings E and F — $139.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Construct National Biodefense Analysis & Countermeasures Center (nbacc) — $127.1M (Department of Homeland Security)
- TAS::75 0849::TAS Bldgs&fac / Admin&svc Bldgs — $109.2M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- P1997210, Office Bldg 106 & Parking Deck, Chamblee Campus — $109.1M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Construction — $107.7M (Department of Health and Human Services)
Other General Services Administration Contracts
- Software Life Cycle Development — $1.4B (Science Applications International Corporation)
- Task Order (TO) 47qfca21f0018 IS Hereby Awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) to Provide Enterprise Level Data to the Ousd(c), and ITS Strategic Partners (I.E., DOD Fourth Estate, DOD Departments, and IC Community) — $1.4B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)
- Federal Contract — $1.2B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)
- THE Scope of the to IS to Provide Enterprise IT Services for the Usace — $1.1B (Science Applications International Corporation)
- Task Order Award — $1.1B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)