GSA's $15.2M construction contract with Estes Company shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,206,257 ($15.2M)

Contractor: Estes Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2003-09-15

End Date: 2008-05-31

Contract Duration: 1,720 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ESTES CO. - (GS06P02GZC0530)

Place of Performance

Location: IOWA

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $15.2 million to ESTES COMPANY, LLC for work described as: ESTES CO. - (GS06P02GZC0530) Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar projects, suggesting a fair price was negotiated. 2. Limited competition, with only two bidders, may have impacted price discovery and potentially led to a higher cost than a more robustly competed contract. 3. The contract's duration and fixed-price nature indicate a predictable cost structure, reducing financial risk for the government. 4. Performance context is limited due to the age of the contract, making direct comparisons to current market conditions challenging. 5. This contract falls within the broad category of commercial building construction, a common area for federal procurement. 6. The absence of small business set-aside provisions means opportunities for smaller firms were not specifically prioritized in this award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of approximately $15.2 million for commercial building construction appears to be within a reasonable range when compared to similar projects of comparable scope and complexity. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the government secured a predictable cost, which is a positive indicator of value. However, the limited number of bidders (two) means that a thorough price comparison against multiple market participants was not possible, which could have potentially led to a less competitive price than if more bids had been received.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. However, only two bids were received. This limited number of bidders suggests that while the competition was open, the pool of interested and qualified contractors may have been constrained for this specific project. A low number of bids can sometimes indicate a lack of market interest, specialized requirements, or intense competition in other areas that drew potential bidders away.

Taxpayer Impact: With only two bidders, taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing achievable. A more robust competition with a larger number of bids typically drives prices down, ensuring better value for taxpayer dollars.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract were the General Services Administration (GSA) and potentially federal employees or agencies that would utilize the constructed facility. The contract delivered commercial and institutional building construction services, contributing to the federal government's infrastructure. The geographic impact was localized to Iowa, where the construction project was presumably located. The contract supported the construction workforce, including skilled trades and labor involved in building projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher price than a more competitive scenario.
The contract is dated (2003-2008), making direct value comparisons to current market conditions difficult.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it hard to assess the quality or efficiency of the construction.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, adhering to principles of broad market access.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty and reduces financial risk for the government.
The contractor, Estes Company, LLC, was selected, implying they met the necessary qualifications at the time of award.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction, classified under NAICS code 236220. This sector is characterized by a wide range of firms, from large general contractors to specialized subcontractors. Federal spending in this area supports the maintenance, renovation, and new construction of government facilities nationwide. Benchmarking this contract's value against other federal construction projects of similar size and scope would provide further context on its cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that both large and small businesses were eligible to compete. Without specific subcontracting plans or data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, the absence of a set-aside suggests that opportunities for small businesses to directly contract with the government on this specific project were not prioritized.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), likely through its Public Buildings Service. As a federal contract, it would be subject to standard government oversight mechanisms, including contract administration and potentially audits. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Commercial Construction Projects
Infrastructure Development

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Dated Contract Data
Lack of Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $15.2 million to ESTES COMPANY, LLC. ESTES CO. - (GS06P02GZC0530)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ESTES COMPANY, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-09-15. End: 2008-05-31.

What was the track record of Estes Company, LLC with federal contracts prior to and following this award?

Analyzing the contract history of Estes Company, LLC would provide insight into their experience and performance with federal agencies. A review of their past awards could reveal patterns in contract types, values, and agencies served. Similarly, examining their subsequent contract history would indicate whether this project was an isolated engagement or part of a broader relationship with the government. Understanding their performance on other contracts, including any reported issues or successes, can help assess their reliability and capability as a federal contractor. Without access to a comprehensive contract database for Estes Company, LLC, it is difficult to provide specific details on their track record beyond this single award.

How does the cost per square foot of this project compare to similar federal construction projects in Iowa during the same period?

To benchmark the value effectively, a comparison of the cost per square foot for this project against similar federal construction contracts awarded in Iowa between 2003 and 2008 would be necessary. This would require identifying comparable projects based on size, type of construction (e.g., office building, warehouse), and specific location within Iowa. Accessing detailed project specifications and final cost data for those comparable contracts would allow for a more precise value-for-money assessment. If this contract's cost per square foot was significantly higher than the average for similar projects, it could indicate potential overpricing or scope creep. Conversely, a lower cost per square foot might suggest efficient project management or favorable market conditions.

What were the specific reasons for the limited competition (only two bidders) for this contract?

The limited competition, with only two bidders for this GSA construction contract, could stem from several factors. The project might have required highly specialized skills or certifications that only a few firms possessed. Alternatively, the geographic location in Iowa might have limited the pool of readily available contractors willing or able to bid. The contract's scope and complexity could also have deterred smaller or less experienced firms. Furthermore, the timing of the solicitation might have coincided with high demand for construction services elsewhere, drawing potential bidders away. Understanding the specific requirements and market conditions at the time of solicitation is crucial to fully explain the low bidder count.

What was the intended use and occupancy of the facility being constructed under this contract?

The intended use and occupancy of the facility are critical for understanding the context and impact of this construction contract. Knowing whether the facility was intended for office space, a laboratory, a storage facility, or another purpose helps in evaluating the necessity and scale of the project. For instance, constructing new office space might be linked to agency expansion or consolidation plans, while a specialized facility could support a unique government mission. The occupancy details, such as the number of personnel expected to work there or the type of operations to be housed, also inform the project's significance and the potential benefits derived from its completion. This information is typically detailed in the original contract solicitation and statement of work.

Were there any performance issues or disputes reported during the execution of this contract?

Information regarding performance issues or disputes during the execution of this contract is not readily available in the provided data. Federal contract performance is typically monitored by the contracting officer's representative (COR) or a contract specialist. Any significant issues, such as delays, quality defects, or cost overruns, would usually be documented within the agency's contract file and potentially reflected in contractor performance evaluations. Disputes might lead to formal claims or litigation. Without access to the contract's performance history or any associated documentation, it is impossible to determine if there were any problems encountered during its lifecycle.

How does the total contract value compare to the GSA's annual spending on commercial building construction in that region?

Comparing the $15.2 million award to the GSA's overall annual spending on commercial building construction in the relevant region (likely the Midwest, given the Iowa location) would provide a sense of its relative scale. If this contract represents a significant portion of the GSA's regional construction budget for that period, it might indicate a major project. Conversely, if it's a small fraction, it suggests it was one of many smaller projects. This comparison helps contextualize the investment and understand its importance within the GSA's broader infrastructure portfolio. Accessing GSA's historical budget and spending reports for construction would be necessary for this analysis.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 131 W 2ND ST STE 400, DAVENPORT, IA, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,167,762

Exercised Options: $15,167,762

Current Obligation: $15,206,257

Timeline