GSA's $42.2M construction management contract for Huntington Federal Building awarded to Mascaro Construction Co. LP
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $42,239,193 ($42.2M)
Contractor: Mascaro Construction CO LP
Awarding Agency: General Services Administration
Start Date: 2009-11-19
End Date: 2015-05-09
Contract Duration: 1,997 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: TAS::47 4543::TAS. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR SERVICES, HUNTINGTON FEDERAL BUILDING, HUNTIGTON, WV.
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTINGTON, CABELL County, WEST VIRGINIA, 25701
Plain-Language Summary
General Services Administration obligated $42.2 million to MASCARO CONSTRUCTION CO LP for work described as: TAS::47 4543::TAS. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR SERVICES, HUNTINGTON FEDERAL BUILDING, HUNTIGTON, WV. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in federal building infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of nearly 2000 days indicates a long-term, complex project. 4. Firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 5. Awarded by the Public Buildings Service, highlighting focus on federal property management. 6. The contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction NAICS code.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $42.2 million for construction management services appears substantial, but without specific benchmarks for similar projects in West Virginia or for federal buildings of comparable size and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to manage costs, but the long duration could introduce risks if initial estimates were not robust. Further analysis would require comparing the per-square-foot cost or management fees to industry standards for similar large-scale federal construction projects.
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. The presence of four bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this project. This competitive environment is generally expected to drive prices towards market rates and encourage efficient service delivery, although the specific pricing outcomes would need to be analyzed against project scope and duration.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, potentially resulting in better value for the government.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring space within the Huntington Federal Building, ensuring a functional and well-managed facility. The contract delivers essential construction management services, overseeing the renovation, repair, or construction activities within the federal building. The geographic impact is localized to Huntington, West Virginia, supporting the federal presence in that region. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction managers, supervisors, skilled trades, and support staff involved in the project.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (nearly 2000 days) could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.
- Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes disincentivize innovation or proactive problem-solving if scope changes are not handled properly.
- Reliance on a single prime contractor for extensive construction management over many years requires robust oversight to ensure performance.
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition suggests a potentially strong pool of qualified bidders.
- Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the initial scope is well-defined.
- Awarded by the General Services Administration, an agency with significant experience in managing federal real estate.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on commercial and institutional building construction. The market for construction management services for federal buildings is substantial, driven by the need to maintain, renovate, and construct government facilities nationwide. The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major player in this market, managing a vast portfolio of federal properties. Benchmarks for similar large-scale federal building projects would typically consider factors like project size (square footage), complexity of work, and regional labor costs.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities offered by the prime contractor, Mascaro Construction Co. LP. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's strategy and the nature of the construction management services required. Without specific subcontracting plans or performance data, it's difficult to assess the broader impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. As a definitive contract awarded under full and open competition, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight mechanisms. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, adherence to contract terms, and financial reporting. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific project management details might be internal. The Inspector General of the GSA would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Building Construction
- Public Buildings Service Contracts
- Construction Management Services
- General Services Administration Procurement
- Firm Fixed Price Contracts
- Large Scale Construction Projects
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or scope creep if not managed meticulously.
- Firm fixed-price contracts can be challenging for very long projects if initial estimates do not account for all potential variables.
- Dependence on a single contractor for extensive management over several years requires robust oversight.
Tags
construction, general-services-administration, west-virginia, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, federal-building, construction-management
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
General Services Administration awarded $42.2 million to MASCARO CONSTRUCTION CO LP. TAS::47 4543::TAS. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR SERVICES, HUNTINGTON FEDERAL BUILDING, HUNTIGTON, WV.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MASCARO CONSTRUCTION CO LP.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $42.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-11-19. End: 2015-05-09.
What is the track record of Mascaro Construction Co. LP with federal contracts, particularly with the GSA?
Mascaro Construction Co. LP has a history of federal contracting, including work with the General Services Administration. Analyzing their past performance on similar projects, especially those involving construction management for federal buildings, is crucial. This includes reviewing contract completion timeliness, adherence to budget, quality of work, and any past performance issues or disputes. A review of their federal contract history, accessible through databases like SAM.gov or FPDS, would provide insights into their reliability and experience in managing large-scale government projects. Their success on this $42.2 million contract could be indicative of their capabilities, but a broader look at their federal portfolio is necessary for a comprehensive assessment.
How does the awarded amount compare to similar construction management contracts for federal buildings of comparable size and scope?
To benchmark the value of this $42.2 million contract, it would be necessary to compare it against similar construction management contracts awarded by the GSA or other federal agencies for projects of comparable size (e.g., square footage of the building), complexity (e.g., renovation vs. new construction), and geographic location. Factors such as the duration of the contract (nearly 2000 days) and the specific services included in the construction management scope are also critical. Without access to a database of comparable contract values and detailed project scopes, it is challenging to definitively state whether this award represents excellent, good, or fair value. However, the full and open competition suggests an effort to achieve competitive pricing.
What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a nearly 2000-day construction management project?
The primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a long-duration project like this (nearly 2000 days) revolve around scope definition and potential for unforeseen issues. If the initial scope of work is not meticulously defined and comprehensive, the contractor may face significant cost increases due to changes or unforeseen conditions, potentially leading to claims or disputes. Conversely, if the price is set too high to account for these risks, taxpayers may overpay. The long duration also increases the risk of material price escalation or labor shortages impacting project timelines and costs, which are borne by the contractor under a fixed-price agreement. Effective contract administration and change order management by the GSA are critical to mitigate these risks.
How effective are the GSA's oversight mechanisms for ensuring performance and accountability on long-term construction management contracts?
The GSA employs various oversight mechanisms for its construction management contracts, including regular site inspections, performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to reporting requirements. For a contract spanning nearly 2000 days, these mechanisms are crucial for monitoring progress, ensuring quality, managing changes, and maintaining accountability. The Public Buildings Service, which awarded this contract, has established procedures for contract administration. Accountability is further reinforced by the potential involvement of the GSA's Office of Inspector General for investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse. The effectiveness hinges on the diligence of the contracting officers and project managers in enforcing contract terms and addressing issues promptly.
What is the historical spending pattern for construction management services by the GSA in West Virginia?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for construction management services by the GSA in West Virginia would require accessing detailed procurement data over several fiscal years. This would involve identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes (e.g., 236220) and service types (construction management) awarded within the state. Such an analysis could reveal trends in contract values, competition levels, and average contract durations. It could also highlight specific periods of increased or decreased GSA investment in construction projects within West Virginia. Without specific historical data for this region, it's difficult to place this $42.2 million contract within a broader state-level spending context.
What are the implications of awarding a definitive contract versus other contract types for this construction management service?
A definitive contract, in this context, likely refers to a contract that establishes all terms and conditions upfront, as opposed to an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Awarding a definitive contract for construction management services suggests that the scope, duration, and price were sufficiently defined at the time of award. This provides greater certainty for both the government and the contractor regarding the project's parameters. For a project like the Huntington Federal Building, where the scope might be well-understood, a definitive contract can streamline the process and ensure clear expectations. It contrasts with IDIQ contracts, which offer flexibility but may have less defined pricing and scope initially.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: GS-03P-09-CD-C-0059
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1720 METROPOLITAN ST, PITTSBURGH, PA, 15233
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $42,239,458
Exercised Options: $42,239,458
Current Obligation: $42,239,193
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-11-19
Current End Date: 2015-05-09
Potential End Date: 2015-05-09 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-04-01
More Contracts from Mascaro Construction CO LP
- Construction Manager AS Constructor (CMC) for the U.S. Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — $169.9M (General Services Administration)
- Constructability Review of Construction Documents for Buffalo Courthouse — $113.1M (General Services Administration)
- 200605!604871!2100!w912dr!usa Engineer Dist Baltimore !w912dr06c0001 !A!N! !N! ! !20060222!20080901!088165972!088165972!088165972!n!mascaro Construction Company, !1720 Metropolitan ST !pittsburgh !pa!15233!30325!021!24!frederick !frederick !maryland !+000026448000!n!n!000026448000!y199!other Miscellaneous Buildings !C2 !construction !000 !NOT Discernable !236220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!u!j!2!004!b! !D!W!A! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !z!z!a!a!000!a!c!y! !N! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $26.8M (Department of Defense)
- Power Enhancement-Cjis — $23.4M (Department of Justice)
- Building 350 Interior Renovations AT Letterkenny Army Depot in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania — $22.7M (Department of Defense)
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)