GSA awards $67.7M courthouse construction contract to Hensel Phelps Construction Co. in Florida

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $67,686,289 ($67.7M)

Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction CO

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2004-03-17

End Date: 2008-05-29

Contract Duration: 1,534 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32801

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $67.7 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 3. Project duration of 1534 days indicates a significant, long-term construction undertaking. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 5. The award was made by the Public Buildings Service, a division of GSA focused on federal facilities. 6. The contract was awarded in March 2004 and completed in May 2008. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The award amount of $67.7 million for a new U.S. Courthouse construction project appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity. Without specific benchmarks for courthouse construction in Florida during 2004-2008, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the use of firm-fixed-price contract type suggests an effort to establish a clear cost ceiling. Further analysis would require comparing this project's cost per square foot or per room to similar federal courthouse constructions.

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 bids. The presence of 2 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. While two bidders participated, the specific details of the bidding process, such as the range of bids submitted, would provide a clearer picture of the competitive dynamics and their impact on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more favorable pricing and better quality services. The fact that two bids were received suggests that taxpayers likely received a competitive price, although more bidders could have potentially driven the price down further.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the judicial system and the public in Florida, who will gain access to a new U.S. Courthouse. The project delivered essential infrastructure for federal court operations, including courtrooms, offices, and related facilities. The geographic impact is localized to Florida, where the new courthouse was constructed. The construction project likely created numerous jobs in the construction sector within Florida during its multi-year duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during a long construction project.
Risk of delays impacting the operational readiness of the new courthouse.
Dependence on a single contractor for a large-scale, critical infrastructure project.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract helps mitigate cost escalation risks.
Award to an established construction company like Hensel Phelps suggests a degree of reliability.
Completion within the specified timeframe (though duration is long) indicates successful project management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services for its facilities, including courthouses, office buildings, and military installations. The market for large-scale public construction projects is often characterized by a mix of large, established firms and smaller specialized contractors. Benchmarking this contract would involve comparing its cost and duration against other federal or large-scale public building projects.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that the primary contract was awarded to a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting directly with Hensel Phelps Construction Co., if they chose to engage them. The absence of a set-aside may limit direct opportunities for small businesses to secure prime contract awards in this instance.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its construction projects, including project management, quality assurance, and financial controls. The Public Buildings Service, responsible for this award, would have had internal review processes. Inspector General oversight would also be applicable to ensure accountability and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse throughout the project lifecycle. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction Projects
Public Buildings Service Contracts
General Services Administration Construction Awards
Firm Fixed Price Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long project duration may increase risk of unforeseen issues.
Moderate competition level (2 bidders) might not yield the lowest possible price.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $67.7 million to HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE NEW U.S. COURTHOUSE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $67.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-03-17. End: 2008-05-29.

What was the track record of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. with the federal government prior to this award?

Prior to the March 2004 award for the U.S. Courthouse in Florida, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. had a history of working with the federal government. While the provided data doesn't detail their entire federal contracting history, major construction firms like Hensel Phelps often engage in numerous projects with various federal agencies over decades. Their experience would likely include a range of building types and complexities. A deeper analysis would involve reviewing federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for their past performance ratings, contract values, and types of projects awarded by agencies such as the GSA, Department of Defense, or others to assess their reliability and expertise in handling large federal construction contracts.

How does the cost per square foot of this courthouse compare to similar federal courthouses built around the same time?

To compare the cost per square foot, we would need the total square footage of the new U.S. Courthouse. Assuming this information were available, we could calculate the cost per square foot by dividing the $67.7 million award amount by the total square footage. This figure would then be benchmarked against similar federal courthouse construction projects awarded between 2004 and 2008, ideally in comparable geographic regions or with similar functional requirements (e.g., number of courtrooms, security features). Without the square footage, a direct comparison is impossible. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an effort to control costs upfront.

What were the primary risks identified for this specific construction project, and how were they mitigated?

For a large-scale construction project like a U.S. Courthouse, primary risks typically include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), weather delays, material cost fluctuations, labor shortages, and design changes. The firm-fixed-price contract inherently mitigates the risk of material and labor cost escalation for the government. Mitigation strategies employed by the contractor, Hensel Phelps, would likely involve detailed site investigations, robust scheduling with contingency for weather, pre-ordering key materials, and a strong project management team to handle design clarifications and potential changes. The GSA's oversight would also play a role in monitoring risk and ensuring compliance with contract terms.

How effective was the competition level (2 bidders) in ensuring a competitive price for taxpayers?

A competition level of two bidders suggests a moderate degree of competition. While it is better than a sole-source award, it is less competitive than scenarios with three or more bidders, which often drive prices down more aggressively. The effectiveness in ensuring a competitive price depends heavily on the nature of the bids submitted. If the two bids were very close in price and aligned with government estimates, it suggests reasonable price discovery. However, if there was a significant gap between the two bids, or if the winning bid was substantially higher than anticipated, the competition may have been less effective. Without knowing the bid amounts relative to each other and to independent cost estimates, it's difficult to definitively assess the value achieved for taxpayers solely based on the number of bidders.

What is the historical spending pattern for courthouse construction by the GSA's Public Buildings Service?

The General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for managing and maintaining the federal government's inventory of buildings, including courthouses. Historical spending patterns for courthouse construction by PBS would show a consistent, albeit cyclical, investment in new facilities and renovations. Spending levels are influenced by factors such as judicial caseloads, aging infrastructure, security requirements, and overall federal budget appropriations. Over the years, PBS has awarded numerous contracts for courthouse construction and modernization, ranging from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the project's scope and location. This $67.7 million award fits within the typical range for a significant new courthouse construction project.

What are the implications of the firm-fixed-price contract type on project management and potential change orders?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract establishes a total price that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This contract type places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor, incentivizing them to manage the project efficiently and control costs. For project management, it means the contractor must be highly diligent in planning, estimating, and execution. For the government, it provides cost certainty. However, FFP contracts can sometimes lead to more scrutiny of change orders, as any deviation from the original scope requires a formal modification and potentially a price increase, which the government will carefully evaluate to ensure it is warranted and priced fairly.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 6280 HAZELTINE NATIONAL DRIVE, ORLANDO, FL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $67,686,289

Exercised Options: $67,686,289

Current Obligation: $67,686,289

Timeline