GSA's $39.6M Jackson Federal Building modernization awarded to Howard S. Wright Companies, a firm-fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,631,505 ($39.6M)

Contractor: Howard S Wright Companies, Washington Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2010-03-08

End Date: 2014-08-01

Contract Duration: 1,607 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - JACKSON FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGN-BUILD MODERNIZATION PROJECT, SEATTLE, WA

Place of Performance

Location: SEATTLE, KING County, WASHINGTON, 98101

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $39.6 million to HOWARD S WRIGHT COMPANIES, WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE for work described as: TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - JACKSON FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGN-BUILD MODERNIZATION PROJECT, SEATTLE, WA Key points: 1. The contract value of $39.6 million for the modernization project represents a significant investment in federal infrastructure. 2. The project was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price indicates a clear scope and cost control expectation. 4. The project duration of approximately 1607 days highlights the complexity and scale of the modernization effort. 5. The award to a joint venture suggests the need for specialized expertise and capacity for large-scale construction. 6. The project is located in Seattle, Washington, impacting local construction workforce and economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $39.6 million for a large-scale federal building modernization is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar federal building construction and renovation projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests an expectation of cost control, but the final cost relative to the initial bid and the scope of work is key. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to private sector projects of similar scale and complexity, it's difficult to definitively assess if the price represents excellent 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. The presence of 10 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and potentially leads to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like this one is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing the best possible price for the services rendered, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies that will occupy the modernized Jackson Federal Building, benefiting from improved facilities and potentially enhanced operational efficiency. The project delivers modernization and design-build services for a significant federal facility. The geographic impact is concentrated in Seattle, Washington, potentially stimulating the local construction industry and economy. The project implies significant workforce implications for the construction sector in the Seattle area, requiring skilled labor for its duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns in large-scale construction projects, even with fixed-price contracts, if unforeseen issues arise.
Dependence on the successful performance and financial stability of the joint venture contractor.
Risk associated with the long duration of the project, potentially leading to changes in requirements or economic conditions.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive pricing environment.
Firm-fixed-price contract type helps to manage cost certainty.
The project addresses critical infrastructure needs for a federal building.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building construction, is a significant area of federal spending. This contract falls under the NAICS code 236220. Federal building modernization projects are common as agencies seek to update aging infrastructure, improve energy efficiency, and enhance security. The market for such large-scale federal construction is competitive, often involving large construction firms or joint ventures capable of handling complex design-build requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting goals for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a larger entity or joint venture. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor or joint venture partners engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or materials.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Public Buildings Service. Mechanisms would include contract performance monitoring, site inspections, and financial reviews. Accountability is established through the firm-fixed-price contract terms, with penalties or incentives potentially tied to performance and schedule. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Design-Build Contracts
Infrastructure Modernization
Public Buildings Service Projects
General Services Administration Contracts

Risk Flags

Long project duration increases risk of cost escalation and scope changes.
Contractor performance and financial stability are critical for project success.
Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting budget and schedule.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $39.6 million to HOWARD S WRIGHT COMPANIES, WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE. TAS::47 4543::TAS RECOVERY - JACKSON FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGN-BUILD MODERNIZATION PROJECT, SEATTLE, WA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HOWARD S WRIGHT COMPANIES, WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-03-08. End: 2014-08-01.

What is the track record of Howard S. Wright Companies, Washington Joint Venture, on similar federal projects?

Assessing the track record of Howard S. Wright Companies, Washington Joint Venture, requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving large-scale design-build modernization of public buildings. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contract performance reports would be crucial. Key indicators to examine include their history of on-time and on-budget project completion, any instances of contract disputes or terminations, and client satisfaction ratings. Understanding their experience with projects of similar complexity, scale, and technical requirements would provide insight into their capability to successfully execute the Jackson Federal Building modernization.

How does the awarded price of $39.6 million compare to similar federal building modernization projects?

To benchmark the $39.6 million award, one would need to identify comparable federal building modernization projects completed or in progress around the same timeframe. Factors to consider include the size of the building (square footage), the scope of modernization (e.g., structural, MEP, interior, energy efficiency upgrades), the geographic location (which influences labor and material costs), and the contract type. Comparing the cost per square foot or cost per major system upgrade across these projects would provide a basis for assessing value. Without access to a detailed cost breakdown of this specific contract and a robust database of comparable projects, a precise comparison is challenging, but the value appears substantial for a major federal facility.

What are the primary risks associated with a project of this duration (approx. 1607 days)?

Projects with a duration of approximately 1607 days (over 4 years) carry inherent risks. These include potential escalation of material and labor costs, even within a fixed-price contract, if not adequately hedged. There's also a risk of scope creep or changes in federal requirements over such a long period, which can lead to change orders and potential cost increases or delays. Contractor performance can degrade over time, and the financial stability of the joint venture could be tested. Furthermore, unforeseen site conditions or technological obsolescence during the project lifecycle can introduce significant risks. Effective risk management, contingency planning, and proactive contract administration are crucial to mitigate these long-term project risks.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for this modernization project?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for taxpayers by establishing a ceiling on the government's financial liability. It places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor, incentivizing them to manage costs efficiently and complete the project within the agreed-upon price. For a project with a well-defined scope like building modernization, FFP is often preferred. However, its effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial scope definition and cost estimation. If unforeseen issues arise that significantly alter the scope, change orders can increase the total cost, potentially diminishing the initial value proposition of the FFP structure. Robust contract administration is still necessary to manage potential change orders and ensure the contractor meets quality standards.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar building modernization projects by the GSA?

Historical spending patterns for similar building modernization projects by the GSA would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and types of competition. Analyzing past GSA contracts for design-build modernization of federal buildings would show the typical range of project costs, average contract durations, and the prevalence of full-and-open versus other competition types. This data can help establish benchmarks for current projects, identify potential cost efficiencies or inefficiencies over time, and understand how GSA's procurement strategies have evolved. Examining spending trends can also highlight areas where GSA has historically faced challenges, such as cost overruns or schedule delays, informing future risk assessments.

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-10P-09-LT-C-0114

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 501 EASTLAKE AVE E STE 100, SEATTLE, WA, 98109

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $39,631,505

Exercised Options: $39,631,505

Current Obligation: $39,631,505

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline