GSA awards $223.7M construction contract for Alexandria Bay Land Port of Entry, highlighting significant infrastructure investment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $223,745,475 ($223.7M)

Contractor: Northland/Cianbro a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2017-06-15

End Date: 2024-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,511 days

Daily Burn Rate: $89.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FOR ALEX BAY LAND PORT OF ENTRY

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA BAY, JEFFERSON County, NEW YORK, 13607

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $223.7 million to NORTHLAND/CIANBRO A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FOR ALEX BAY LAND PORT OF ENTRY Key points: 1. The contract value represents a substantial investment in border infrastructure, suggesting a critical need for facility upgrades. 2. Competition dynamics for this large-scale construction project are crucial for ensuring taxpayer value. 3. The duration of the contract (2511 days) indicates a long-term commitment to the project's completion and potential for ongoing performance monitoring. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but requires careful management to avoid scope creep. 5. The project's location in New York positions it as a key component of regional economic activity and border security. 6. The absence of small business set-aside suggests the primary focus was on specialized construction capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $223.7 million for a land port of entry construction is significant. Benchmarking against similar large-scale federal construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to contain costs. The General Services Administration (GSA) typically manages large infrastructure projects, and their experience can be a positive indicator. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparable project data, a definitive assessment is challenging, but the scale implies a substantial undertaking.

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. This approach is generally favored for large federal contracts as it promotes a wider range of potential contractors and encourages competitive pricing. The fact that a joint venture, NORTHLAND/CIANBRO, was awarded the contract suggests they offered the most advantageous proposal based on price, technical qualifications, and other factors. The level of competition for such a large project is a positive sign for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude increases the likelihood that the government secured the best possible price and value for taxpayers by leveraging a broad market of qualified contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies responsible for border security and customs operations at the Alexandria Bay port of entry. The project will deliver modernized and expanded facilities to support increased trade and travel efficiency. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alexandria Bay, New York, potentially stimulating local economic activity through job creation and material sourcing. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and related trades during the project's multi-year duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the firm fixed-price structure.
Risk of schedule delays due to the complexity of large-scale construction and potential supply chain issues.
Ensuring the final construction meets all operational and security requirements for a land port of entry.
Managing the long duration of the contract to maintain oversight and contractor performance.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process that likely yielded a fair price.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor is a joint venture with presumed expertise in large-scale construction projects.
The project addresses a critical infrastructure need for border operations.
The General Services Administration's involvement indicates established project management protocols.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically for a government facility. The market for large-scale public infrastructure projects is often dominated by a few large firms or joint ventures capable of handling the complexity and scale. Federal spending in this sector is driven by needs for modernization, expansion, and security of government facilities, including critical border crossings. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other land port of entry projects or large federal building constructions managed by GSA.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this procurement (ss: false, sb: false). This is common for large, complex construction projects where specialized expertise and bonding capacity are paramount, often favoring larger firms or joint ventures. While there's no direct set-aside, the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specific trades or services, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly. However, the primary focus of this award was likely on the capabilities of the joint venture.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing this contract. Oversight mechanisms would include regular progress reports, site inspections, and performance reviews. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including payment schedules tied to milestones and potential penalties for non-performance. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed project-specific oversight activities are typically internal. The Inspector General's office for GSA would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any irregularities were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Border Security Infrastructure
GSA Public Buildings Construction
Land Port of Entry Modernization
Department of Homeland Security Facilities
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Projects

Risk Flags

Long Contract Duration
Potential for Unforeseen Site Conditions
Complex Stakeholder Management (multiple federal agencies)
Supply Chain Volatility for Construction Materials

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $223.7 million to NORTHLAND/CIANBRO A JOINT VENTURE. IGF::OT::IGF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION FOR ALEX BAY LAND PORT OF ENTRY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORTHLAND/CIANBRO A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $223.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-06-15. End: 2024-04-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar land port of entry construction projects by the GSA?

Analyzing historical GSA spending on land port of entry construction reveals a pattern of significant, multi-year investments in critical border infrastructure. Projects of this scale, often exceeding $100 million, are typically awarded through full and open competition to large construction firms or joint ventures. The duration of these projects can range from 2 to 5 years or more, depending on complexity and scope. Spending is often tied to specific appropriations cycles and national security priorities. For instance, prior to this award, GSA has undertaken modernization efforts at various border crossings, reflecting a consistent need to upgrade aging facilities and enhance operational capabilities. The firm fixed-price contract type is common to manage costs on these large endeavors, though vigilance against scope creep and change orders is essential. The total investment in such projects can fluctuate based on federal budget priorities and the specific needs identified at each port of entry.

How does the awarded price compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects?

Directly comparing the $223.7 million award to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects requires detailed project specifications, including square footage, materials, site conditions, and specific functional requirements of a land port of entry. However, for large-scale institutional or commercial building construction, costs can range significantly. Factors like location (labor costs, material availability), complexity of systems (security, IT, customs processing), and specialized requirements (e.g., hazardous material handling, environmental controls) heavily influence pricing. Given the specialized nature of a land port of entry, which involves secure processing areas, inspection facilities, and extensive infrastructure for vehicle and pedestrian flow, it is likely at the higher end of construction cost benchmarks. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor has factored in these complexities and risks into their bid. A comprehensive benchmark would necessitate access to detailed cost breakdowns and data from comparable projects.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to monitor the progress and success of this contract?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a large construction contract like the Alexandria Bay Land Port of Entry typically focus on schedule adherence, cost control, quality of work, and safety. Specific KPIs might include: 1. Schedule Variance: Measuring the difference between planned and actual progress against key milestones. 2. Cost Performance Index (CPI): Tracking the efficiency of cost utilization (Earned Value / Actual Cost). 3. Quality Assurance: Monitoring defect rates, compliance with specifications, and successful completion of inspections. 4. Safety Performance: Tracking incident rates (e.g., Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate) and adherence to safety protocols. 5. Deliverables Completion: Ensuring timely completion and acceptance of defined project phases and final construction. The GSA's project management team would establish and track these KPIs throughout the contract's duration, using them to assess contractor performance and ensure the project remains on track.

What is the contractor's track record with large-scale federal construction projects, particularly for GSA?

The contractor, NORTHLAND/CIANBRO A JOINT VENTURE, is a collaboration between two entities, suggesting a pooling of resources and expertise for this large project. To assess their track record, one would typically examine past performance evaluations on federal contracts, particularly those managed by the GSA or similar agencies. This includes reviewing contract close-out data, any past performance questionnaires (PPQs), and any documented disputes or claims. For joint ventures, it's important to consider the experience of the individual partners. Northland Construction Group and Cianbro Corporation are both established construction companies with experience in large-scale projects, including infrastructure and institutional buildings. Their history with GSA would be a critical factor in the award decision, indicating their ability to meet federal standards for quality, schedule, and budget on complex projects.

What are the potential risks associated with the long duration (2511 days) of this contract?

The 2511-day duration (approximately 7 years) of this construction contract presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's an increased likelihood of encountering unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations over such an extended period, even with a firm fixed-price contract, which could lead to change order requests. Secondly, maintaining consistent oversight and performance management over seven years can be challenging for the contracting agency, requiring sustained resources and institutional memory. Thirdly, technological advancements in construction methods or materials might emerge during the project, potentially making the initial design or chosen methods outdated by completion. Finally, there's a risk of contractor personnel turnover, which could impact project continuity and knowledge transfer. Mitigating these risks requires robust contract administration, proactive risk management by both parties, and clear communication channels.

How does this contract contribute to the overall mission of the General Services Administration?

This contract directly supports the GSA's mission to provide federal agencies with the best value in real estate, acquisition, and management services. Specifically, it aligns with GSA's role in delivering high-quality, sustainable, and secure federal facilities. By constructing a modern land port of entry, GSA enables critical border operations for agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This project enhances national security, facilitates legitimate trade and travel, and supports economic activity. It represents a significant capital investment in public infrastructure, demonstrating GSA's capability to manage complex, large-scale construction projects that are vital to the nation's infrastructure and security.

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: GS-02-P-17-DT-C-0002

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 101 CIANBRO SQUARE, PITTSFIELD, ME, 04967

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $226,431,976

Exercised Options: $223,745,475

Current Obligation: $223,745,475

Actual Outlays: $15,104,415

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 34

Total Subaward Amount: $61,077,880

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline