GSA's $63.5M building renovation contract with Shiel Sexton Co. Inc. awarded in 2005, spanning over 8 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $63,517,059 ($63.5M)

Contractor: Shiel Sexton CO Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2005-07-29

End Date: 2014-05-30

Contract Duration: 3,227 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CMC SERVICES, BUILDING RENOVATION

Place of Performance

Location: INDIANAPOLIS, MARION County, INDIANA, 46204

State: Indiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $63.5 million to SHIEL SEXTON CO INC for work described as: CMC SERVICES, BUILDING RENOVATION Key points: 1. The contract's extended duration suggests a need for sustained services, potentially indicating complex or long-term renovation requirements. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty, but requires careful monitoring to ensure value is maintained over the contract's life. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, this contract likely benefited from a competitive bidding process to secure favorable pricing. 4. The contract's significant value indicates a substantial project, likely involving major building upgrades or extensive renovations. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is not a small business, with subcontracting opportunities needing further review. 6. The contract's completion in 2014 means current performance data is unavailable, limiting direct comparison to contemporary market rates.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its completion in 2014 and the lack of specific project details. The total award of $63.5 million over approximately 8.8 years averages to about $7.2 million annually. Without knowing the scope of work, it's difficult to compare this to similar large-scale building renovations. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests an attempt at cost control, but the long duration could have led to cost escalations if not managed effectively. The initial bid price relative to the final cost would be a key indicator of value.

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 a bid. This typically involves a robust solicitation process designed to encourage a wide range of proposals. The number of bids received (3) is on the lower side for a contract of this magnitude, which could suggest potential limitations in the market for such extensive renovation services or specific requirements in the solicitation that narrowed the field.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation. However, with only three bidders, the potential for significant price discovery might have been somewhat constrained compared to a scenario with a larger number of competing firms.

Public Impact

Federal agencies utilizing the General Services Administration (GSA) facilities managed under this contract would benefit from modernized and potentially more efficient buildings. The renovation services delivered likely improved the functionality, safety, and aesthetic appeal of public buildings. The geographic impact is centered in Indiana, where the contract was performed, potentially benefiting the local economy through construction jobs and material sourcing. The construction workforce in Indiana would have been directly impacted through employment opportunities for skilled tradespeople and laborers during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long duration of the contract (over 8 years) could have led to potential cost overruns if not meticulously managed, especially with a firm-fixed-price structure.
The relatively low number of bidders (3) for a contract of this size might indicate a less competitive market or specific barriers to entry for potential competitors.
Lack of detailed performance metrics from the past makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and effectiveness throughout the project lifecycle.
The contract ended in 2014, making it difficult to benchmark current costs and value against contemporary market conditions and technological advancements.

Positive Signals

The award under 'full and open competition' suggests a deliberate effort to secure the best value through a broad solicitation process.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost certainty for the government, assuming effective management and oversight.
The substantial value of the contract indicates a significant investment in public infrastructure, likely leading to long-term improvements in federal facilities.
The contract's completion suggests the project was successfully executed to its defined scope, delivering the intended renovation services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220). This sector encompasses establishments primarily engaged in the construction or remodeling of nonresidential buildings. The market for large-scale federal building renovations is significant, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade aging government infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal renovation projects managed by agencies like GSA, the Department of Defense, or other civilian agencies, considering factors like building size, complexity of work, and geographic location.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This means the primary contract was not specifically reserved for small businesses. While the prime contractor, Shiel Sexton Co. Inc., is likely not a small business given the contract's scale, there may have been opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent to which subcontracting goals were met or if small businesses were actively sought for specialized renovation tasks would be a key factor in assessing the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. Mechanisms likely included contract officer representatives (CORs) monitoring progress, adherence to specifications, and quality control. Accountability would be tied to the firm-fixed-price terms and performance milestones. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Renovations
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Construction Services for Federal Facilities
Infrastructure Modernization Projects
Firm-Fixed-Price Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long Contract Duration
Limited Bidder Count
Outdated Performance Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $63.5 million to SHIEL SEXTON CO INC. CMC SERVICES, BUILDING RENOVATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SHIEL SEXTON CO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $63.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-07-29. End: 2014-05-30.

What was the specific scope of work for this $63.5 million building renovation contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'CMC SERVICES, BUILDING RENOVATION' under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). However, specific details regarding the scope of work, such as the type of renovations (e.g., HVAC upgrades, structural repairs, interior modernization, energy efficiency improvements), the specific buildings involved, and the extent of the work (e.g., square footage renovated), are not available in the abbreviated data. This level of detail is crucial for a comprehensive value assessment and comparison to similar projects. Without it, we can only infer that it involved substantial work on federal buildings within Indiana.

How did the final cost compare to the initial awarded amount, and what does this suggest about value for money?

The provided data lists an 'award amount' (a) of $63,517,058.51. However, it does not specify if this was the initial award amount or the final contract value after modifications. To assess value for money, it's essential to know if the contract was completed within budget or if there were significant cost increases. If the final cost remained close to the initial award, it suggests good cost control. Conversely, substantial increases might indicate scope creep, unforeseen issues, or potential inefficiencies, raising questions about the initial pricing and overall value. Without data on contract modifications or final expenditure, a definitive assessment is not possible.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Shiel Sexton Co. Inc.'s performance on this contract?

The provided data does not include information on the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Shiel Sexton Co. Inc.'s performance. For a contract of this nature and duration, typical KPIs might have included adherence to project schedules, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, budget management, and responsiveness to GSA requirements. The absence of this information limits our ability to objectively assess the contractor's track record and the overall success of the renovation project beyond its completion.

Given the contract ended in 2014, how can its value be benchmarked against current market rates for similar construction services?

Benchmarking this 2014 contract against current market rates is challenging due to inflation, changes in material costs, labor rates, and technological advancements in construction. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need to adjust the 2014 contract value for inflation using appropriate indices (e.g., Consumer Price Index for Construction) and then compare it to the cost of similar renovation projects initiated today. Additionally, analyzing the scope of work and comparing it to current project costs per square foot or per trade would be necessary. Without detailed scope information and current market data, any comparison would be highly speculative.

What is the significance of the contract duration (3,227 days) in relation to the total contract value?

The contract duration of 3,227 days, approximately 8.8 years, is substantial for a renovation project. Spreading a $63.5 million value over nearly nine years results in an average annual expenditure of roughly $7.2 million. This extended timeline suggests the project likely involved phased renovations, complex logistical challenges, or a continuous program of upgrades rather than a single, concentrated renovation effort. Such long durations can sometimes lead to increased administrative costs and potential for scope drift if not tightly managed. However, it could also reflect a strategic approach to minimize disruption or to accommodate evolving facility needs over time.

Were there any notable issues or disputes during the performance of this contract that impacted its cost or timeline?

The provided abbreviated data does not contain information regarding any specific issues, disputes, change orders, or claims that may have arisen during the performance of this contract. For a contract spanning over eight years and valued at over $63 million, it is not uncommon for unforeseen circumstances, design changes, or differing site conditions to lead to modifications or disagreements. A thorough review of contract modification history, payment records, and any associated documentation would be necessary to identify potential performance issues or disputes and their impact on the final cost and timeline.

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-05P-05-GBC-0044

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 902 N CAPITOL AVE, INDIANAPOLIS, IN, 07

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $63,517,059

Exercised Options: $63,517,059

Current Obligation: $63,517,059

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline