GSA awards $48.9M contract for Tuscaloosa Federal Building construction, highlighting public infrastructure investment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,932,415 ($48.9M)

Contractor: BE&K Building Group, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2008-10-24

End Date: 2013-03-29

Contract Duration: 1,617 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN PHASE SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR A NEW FEDERAL BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE IN TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

Place of Performance

Location: TUSCALOOSA, TUSCALOOSA County, ALABAMA, 35401

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $48.9 million to BE&K BUILDING GROUP, LLC for work described as: DESIGN PHASE SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR A NEW FEDERAL BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE IN TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA Key points: 1. Contract awarded to BE&K Building Group, LLC for design and construction services. 2. Project scope includes a new federal building and courthouse in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 3. The contract utilized full and open competition, indicating a broad market solicitation. 4. Fixed-price contract type suggests defined cost parameters for the government. 5. Project duration spans over 1600 days, encompassing design and construction phases. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract requires more granular data on construction costs per square foot and specific project requirements. However, the award amount of $48.9 million for a federal building and courthouse suggests a significant investment in public infrastructure. Without comparable projects in the same region or of similar scale and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for fiscal management.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to present their best pricing and technical solutions. The fact that six bids were received (no=6) suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this project, which is generally beneficial for price discovery and achieving a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to better pricing for taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives proposals from a wide range of qualified contractors, driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring space in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and the citizens who will utilize the new federal building and courthouse. The project delivers essential public infrastructure, including design and construction of a new federal facility. The geographic impact is localized to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, providing a new civic landmark. The construction phase will likely create numerous jobs in the local and regional construction workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or design changes arise, despite the fixed-price structure.
Construction timelines can be subject to delays due to weather, labor availability, or material shortages.
Ensuring the final structure meets all federal building codes and security requirements will be critical.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition is a positive signal for achieving competitive pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty to the government.
The project addresses a clear need for federal facilities in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for federal building construction is characterized by stringent requirements, long procurement cycles, and a need for contractors with specialized expertise and security clearances. The General Services Administration (GSA) is a major player in this market, managing a vast portfolio of federal properties. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot of other recently constructed federal courthouses or administrative buildings of similar size and complexity.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb=false) and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. The award to BE&K Building Group, LLC, a potentially larger entity, suggests that the primary contract was not specifically targeted at small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses within the overall project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. GSA has established procurement regulations, contract administration processes, and quality assurance procedures to monitor performance and ensure compliance. Transparency is generally maintained through public contract awards and reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction
GSA Public Buildings Program
Design-Build Contracts
Infrastructure Investment

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of construction delays impacting project completion timeline.
Ensuring adherence to stringent federal building codes and security standards.
Contractor performance and quality control throughout the project lifecycle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $48.9 million to BE&K BUILDING GROUP, LLC. DESIGN PHASE SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR A NEW FEDERAL BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE IN TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BE&K BUILDING GROUP, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $48.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-10-24. End: 2013-03-29.

What is the track record of BE&K Building Group, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the GSA?

A comprehensive review of BE&K Building Group, LLC's track record with federal contracts, especially those administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), would involve examining past performance evaluations, contract completion history, and any documented disputes or claims. Data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be crucial. Understanding their experience with similar-sized construction projects, adherence to schedules and budgets, and overall quality of work on previous federal projects would provide insight into their reliability for the Tuscaloosa Federal Building contract. Without specific historical data on BE&K Building Group, LLC's performance on federal projects, it is difficult to definitively assess their track record.

How does the awarded amount of $48.9 million compare to similar federal building construction projects in the Southeast region?

To compare the $48.9 million award for the Tuscaloosa Federal Building to similar projects, one would need to identify federal courthouses or administrative buildings of comparable size (square footage), complexity, and construction type completed in the Southeast region around the same timeframe (2008-2013). Key metrics for comparison would include cost per square foot, specific functional requirements (e.g., courtrooms, security features), and the prevailing economic conditions at the time of construction. For instance, if similar projects in the region cost significantly more or less per square foot, it could indicate whether this award represents a particularly good or poor value. Accessing GSA's historical project data or construction industry cost databases would be necessary for a robust comparison.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this type of fixed-price construction contract for a federal building?

For a firm fixed-price contract like this, primary risk indicators for the government often revolve around the contractor's ability to deliver the project within the agreed-upon price. Risks include potential for contractor default if costs escalate beyond their projections, leading to delays or abandonment. There's also a risk that the contractor might cut corners on quality to maintain profitability, necessitating rigorous government oversight and quality assurance. Furthermore, unforeseen site conditions or scope creep (changes to the original design) can lead to change orders, which, while managed, can increase the overall cost and complexity. The long duration (1617 days) also increases the exposure to market fluctuations in material costs and labor availability, which the contractor assumes but could still impact project viability.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring cost-effectiveness for federal building projects of this scale?

The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered highly effective in promoting cost-effectiveness for federal building projects. By allowing all responsible contractors to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. The presence of multiple bidders (six in this case) creates pressure on each contractor to submit their most favorable proposal to win the contract. This competitive dynamic helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for design and construction services. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity and completeness of the solicitation documents and the government's ability to evaluate proposals objectively based on both price and technical merit.

What are the historical spending patterns for federal building construction managed by the GSA, and how does this contract fit within them?

Historical spending patterns for federal building construction by the GSA typically show significant annual outlays, driven by the need to maintain, modernize, and expand the federal real estate portfolio. Spending fluctuates based on congressional appropriations, infrastructure priorities, and the lifecycle of existing federal facilities. This $48.9 million contract for a new building in Tuscaloosa represents a specific capital investment within the broader GSA construction budget. Analyzing GSA's historical spending on similar courthouse or administrative building projects would reveal trends in project size, cost per square foot, and the prevalence of different contracting methods (e.g., design-build vs. design-bid-build). This contract appears to be a standard, albeit substantial, component of GSA's ongoing efforts to provide adequate federal workspace.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: GS-04P-08-EX-C-0119A

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: KBR, Inc. (UEI: 784072626)

Address: 5605 CARNEGIE BLVD STE 200, CHARLOTTE, NC, 12

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,230,447

Exercised Options: $48,932,415

Current Obligation: $48,932,415

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline