GSA's $52.4M construction contract for a new USCH annex awarded to Caddell Construction, completed in 2006

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $52,444,001 ($52.4M)

Contractor: Caddell Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2004-02-12

End Date: 2006-03-15

Contract Duration: 762 days

Daily Burn Rate: $68.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ANNEX, RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD USCH

Place of Performance

Location: LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI County, ARKANSAS, 72201

State: Arkansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $52.4 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ANNEX, RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD USCH Key points: 1. The contract value of $52.4 million for the construction of a new annex represents a significant investment in federal infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract suggests a competitive bidding process that likely influenced pricing. 3. The fixed-firm price contract structure indicates that the contractor assumed the primary risk for cost overruns. 4. The project duration of 762 days (approximately 2 years) provides context for the scale and complexity of the construction. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to the commercial and institutional building construction sector. 6. The contract was awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA), a key agency for federal building management.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $52.4 million for the construction of a new annex appears reasonable for a federal building project of this scale. Benchmarking against similar federal courthouse or office building constructions would provide more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the initial bid was competitive and that the contractor bore the risk of cost escalation. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to private sector construction of equivalent facilities, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process is a positive indicator.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 8 bidders, the level of competition was substantial, which typically drives down prices and encourages efficiency. This broad competition suggests that the GSA sought the best value and that multiple firms were vying for the opportunity, likely leading to a more favorable price for the government compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this construction project likely resulted in taxpayer savings by ensuring the government received competitive pricing for the new annex. A higher number of bidders generally correlates with better price discovery and a more efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this project are the judicial system and federal employees who will utilize the new Richard Sheppard Arnold USCH annex. The construction delivered expanded facilities, likely improving operational capacity and security for the courthouse. The geographic impact is localized to the specific area where the Richard Sheppard Arnold USCH is located in Arkansas. The project supported jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades and labor, during its execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions were encountered, though mitigated by firm fixed-price.
Delays in construction schedule could impact the availability of the new facility.
Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the longevity and safety of the annex.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive market.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Project completed within a defined timeframe (762 days), suggesting effective project management.
Construction of essential federal infrastructure enhances government service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The federal government is a significant client for construction services, undertaking projects ranging from courthouses and office buildings to research facilities and infrastructure. The market for federal construction is competitive, with agencies like GSA managing a large portfolio of real estate. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar federal building constructions across different regions and agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false) and that there was no explicit small business subcontracting goal (sb: false). This suggests that the primary contract was not targeted towards small businesses, and subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime contractor's procurement practices. Without specific subcontracting reports, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, but it was not a primary focus of the contract's award structure.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its construction projects, including project management, quality assurance, and contract administration. The Public Buildings Service (PBS) within GSA is responsible for managing federal buildings. Inspector General audits may also be applicable to ensure accountability and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction
General Services Administration Building Projects
Public Buildings Service Contracts
US Courthouse Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting schedule or cost.
Risk of labor or material cost escalation, though mitigated by FFP.
Dependence on contractor's project management for timely completion.
Quality control during construction is critical for long-term asset value.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $52.4 million to CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ANNEX, RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD USCH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CADDELL CONSTRUCTION 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 $52.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-02-12. End: 2006-03-15.

What was the contractor's track record with the GSA prior to this award?

Assessing Caddell Construction Co., Inc.'s prior track record with the GSA would involve reviewing their past performance on similar federal construction projects. This would include examining project completion history, any documented performance issues or disputes, and overall client satisfaction ratings. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project delivery would indicate a lower risk profile for this specific contract. Conversely, a history of significant delays, cost overruns, or quality issues would raise concerns about their capability to execute the Richard Sheppard Arnold USCH annex project effectively. Without access to GSA's internal contractor performance evaluation data, a definitive assessment is not possible from the provided data alone.

How does the final cost compare to the initial bid or estimated cost?

The provided data shows a single award amount of $52,444,001.13, which is the final contract value. To compare this to the initial bid or estimated cost, we would need access to the original solicitation documents and the submitted bids. If this figure represents the winning bid and there were no significant change orders or modifications that altered the contract value substantially, then it reflects the negotiated price. A firm fixed-price contract generally aims to lock in costs, so significant deviations from the initial award amount would typically require strong justification and would be subject to contract clauses. Understanding the bidding landscape (8 bidders) suggests the initial award was likely competitive.

What were the key risk indicators identified during the bidding or execution phase?

Key risk indicators for a federal construction project of this magnitude often include potential for unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), labor availability and cost fluctuations, material price volatility, and weather-related delays. For this specific contract, the firm fixed-price (FFP) structure inherently transfers most of the cost overrun risk to the contractor, Caddell Construction Co., Inc. The project duration of 762 days (over two years) also presents risks related to market changes and potential for schedule slippage. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with 8 bidders suggests that the GSA likely assessed the bids based on technical capability and price, implicitly mitigating some execution risks by selecting a capable contractor.

How effective was the competition in driving down the price for taxpayers?

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' with 8 bidders, which is a strong indicator of effective competition. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing as firms vie for the contract. The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type further ensures that the government's cost is largely predetermined, minimizing the risk of price increases due to contractor inefficiencies. While the exact savings compared to a sole-source or limited competition cannot be quantified without a baseline, the robust competition suggests that taxpayers benefited from a price that likely reflected market rates and the efficiencies of multiple firms bidding.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar courthouse construction projects by the GSA?

Historical spending patterns for similar courthouse construction projects by the GSA would reveal trends in contract values, project durations, and cost per square foot. Analyzing past GSA courthouse projects would help establish benchmarks for cost-effectiveness and identify any significant increases or decreases in spending over time. This specific project's value of $52.4 million for a new annex, completed in 2006, would be compared against projects of similar size, scope, and location. Understanding these patterns is crucial for budgeting future projects and assessing whether current spending is in line with historical norms or reflects market shifts, inflation, or changes in construction standards.

Were there any significant change orders or contract modifications post-award?

The provided data does not include information on change orders or contract modifications. For a firm fixed-price contract, significant modifications that alter the contract value would typically require strong justification, such as unforeseen site conditions or changes in government requirements. The absence of this data means we cannot assess if the final cost of $52.4 million deviated substantially from the originally awarded amount due to modifications. Reviewing the contract's official modification history would be necessary to determine if such changes occurred and their impact on the total cost.

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: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 2700 LAGOON PARK DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, AL, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,444,001

Exercised Options: $52,444,001

Current Obligation: $52,444,001

Timeline