GSA's $101M courthouse repair contract awarded to Swinerton Builders faced full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $101,298,300 ($101.3M)

Contractor: Swinerton Builders

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2009-11-20

End Date: 2014-05-05

Contract Duration: 1,627 days

Daily Burn Rate: $62.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::47 4543::TAS *RECOVERY*CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR (CMC) SERVICES FOR THE REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF THE PJKK U. S. COURTHOUSE (PART I), 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HAWAII

Place of Performance

Location: HONOLULU, HONOLULU County, HAWAII, 96850

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $101.3 million to SWINERTON BUILDERS for work described as: TAS::47 4543::TAS *RECOVERY*CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR (CMC) SERVICES FOR THE REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF THE PJKK U. S. COURTHOUSE (PART I), 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HAWAII Key points: 1. The contract aimed to repair and alter the PJKK U.S. Courthouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. 2. Awarded in 2009, the project spanned over 1600 days, indicating a complex and lengthy construction undertaking. 3. The use of a Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract type suggests a shared risk between the government and contractor for cost overruns. 4. With 8 bidders, the competition level was robust, likely contributing to price discovery. 5. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor did it indicate specific subcontracting goals. 6. The project's duration and scope suggest potential for significant local economic impact through labor and material sourcing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar courthouse renovation projects in Hawaii during the 2009-2014 period. The fixed-price incentive structure implies that cost savings were shared, but the final cost relative to initial estimates and market rates for construction management services is not readily available. The significant duration of the contract (over 4 years) could indicate scope creep or unforeseen complexities, impacting overall value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' with 8 bidders vying for the work. This indicates a healthy level of market interest and suggests that the General Services Administration (GSA) sought to leverage market forces to obtain competitive pricing and a qualified contractor. The presence of multiple bidders generally supports the notion that the government received a fair price, though the specific cost-effectiveness would depend on the bid evaluation criteria and the final negotiated price.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for a large-scale construction project like this generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and ensuring that the government selects the best value offer. The robust competition suggests that taxpayer funds were likely used efficiently in awarding this contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the users of the PJKK U.S. Courthouse, who would experience improved facilities and functionality. The contract delivered repair and alteration services for a significant federal building. The geographic impact is localized to Honolulu, Hawaii, supporting the local economy through employment and material procurement. The project likely created numerous jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades, project management, and support staff in Hawaii.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Contract duration of over 1600 days may indicate potential for cost overruns or schedule delays if not managed effectively.
Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contracts carry inherent risks of cost escalation if performance targets are not met or if the incentive structure is not carefully designed.
Lack of specific small business set-aside information raises questions about opportunities for smaller firms in the subcontracting chain.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with 8 bidders suggests a competitive environment that should have yielded a fair price.
The selection of Swinerton Builders, a known entity in construction, implies a level of confidence in their capability to execute the project.
The project's focus on repair and alteration indicates an investment in maintaining critical federal infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on repair and alteration. The federal government, particularly agencies like GSA, is a significant client for construction services. Spending in this sector often benchmarks against indices like the Producer Price Index for construction or specific regional construction cost data. The scale of this project, over $100 million, places it as a substantial undertaking within the federal construction landscape.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While the primary award went to Swinerton Builders, a large firm, the extent of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses is not detailed. Federal regulations often encourage or mandate subcontracting plans for large prime contracts, which could have provided avenues for small business participation. Without specific subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem remains unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), likely through its Public Buildings Service. Mechanisms would include contract administration, performance monitoring, and potentially site inspections. Transparency is typically managed through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Construction and Renovation Projects
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Construction Management Services for Federal Facilities
Fixed Price Incentive Contracts
Commercial Building Repair and Alteration

Risk Flags

Long Contract Duration
Fixed Price Incentive Contract Risks
Potential for Cost Overruns
Limited Small Business Subcontracting Visibility

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $101.3 million to SWINERTON BUILDERS. TAS::47 4543::TAS *RECOVERY*CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AS CONSTRUCTOR (CMC) SERVICES FOR THE REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF THE PJKK U. S. COURTHOUSE (PART I), 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HAWAII

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SWINERTON BUILDERS.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $101.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-11-20. End: 2014-05-05.

What was the final cost of the contract compared to the initial award amount, and what factors contributed to any variance?

The provided data shows an award amount of $101,298,300.17. However, it does not specify the final cost or any variances from the initial award. Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contracts are designed to share cost risks; if the final cost exceeded the target cost, both the government and the contractor would bear a portion of the overrun, up to a ceiling price. Conversely, if costs were below the target, savings would also be shared. Without the final cost data, it's impossible to assess the cost performance or the effectiveness of the incentive structure in controlling expenditures for this specific project.

How did Swinerton Builders' past performance and experience influence their selection for this large-scale courthouse project?

The provided data does not include details on Swinerton Builders' past performance or specific experience relevant to this courthouse project. However, the fact that they were awarded a contract of this magnitude under full and open competition suggests they met the government's criteria for technical capability, past performance, and price. Agencies like GSA typically conduct thorough pre-award reviews of a contractor's history, including project management, safety records, and successful completion of similar projects, before making a selection. Swinerton Builders is a well-established construction firm, implying they possess the necessary credentials.

What were the key performance metrics and milestones defined in the contract, and how were they measured?

The data indicates the contract type was Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) and provides a duration of 1627 days (approximately 4.45 years). This suggests that performance was likely tied to achieving specific construction milestones within the allocated timeframe and budget. Key metrics would typically include adherence to project schedules, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and cost control relative to target costs. The incentive aspect implies that performance against these metrics would trigger cost-sharing adjustments. However, the specific metrics, targets, and measurement methods are not detailed in the provided summary.

Can the value for money be assessed by comparing this contract's cost per square foot or per unit of work to similar federal courthouse projects?

Assessing value for money requires detailed cost breakdowns and comparable data, which are not fully available here. The contract covers 'REPAIR AND ALTERATION' for the PJKK U.S. Courthouse. To benchmark effectively, we would need the total square footage of the affected areas, the specific types of repairs and alterations undertaken (e.g., structural, MEP, finishes), and cost data from similar projects in Honolulu or comparable urban areas during the 2009-2014 period. Without these specifics, a precise cost-per-unit or cost-per-square-foot comparison is not feasible, making a definitive value-for-money assessment difficult.

What were the potential risks associated with the long duration (1627 days) of this construction project, and how were they mitigated?

A contract duration of 1627 days (over 4 years) for a courthouse repair project presents several risks. These include potential for significant cost escalation due to inflation, material price volatility, and labor market changes over time. Schedule delays could arise from unforeseen site conditions, weather impacts, or contractor performance issues. Furthermore, extended project timelines can disrupt courthouse operations and user access. Mitigation strategies likely involved the FPI contract structure, which incentivizes cost control, robust project management by GSA, contingency planning for known risks, and potentially phased construction to minimize operational impact.

How did the 'full and open competition' with 8 bidders specifically benefit taxpayers in terms of cost savings or improved service quality?

The 'full and open competition' with 8 bidders suggests a robust market response, which generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price competition. When multiple qualified firms submit proposals, they are incentivized to offer competitive pricing and demonstrate superior value to win the contract. This competitive pressure can lead to lower initial bid prices and encourage contractors to be more efficient during project execution to meet or beat cost targets, especially under an FPI structure. While the exact savings are not quantified here, the high number of bidders increases the likelihood that the government secured a fair market price and selected a contractor capable of delivering quality services efficiently.

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-09P-09-KT-C-0103

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1003 BISHOP ST STE 1340, HONOLULU, HI, 96813

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $101,298,300

Exercised Options: $101,298,300

Current Obligation: $101,298,300

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline