HHS awards $109M for Chamblee Campus building and parking, completed on time

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $109,127,651 ($109.1M)

Contractor: Gilbane Building Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2005-02-09

End Date: 2008-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,329 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: P1997210, OFFICE BLDG 106 & PARKING DECK, CHAMBLEE CAMPUS

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, DEKALB County, GEORGIA, 30341, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $109.1 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for work described as: P1997210, OFFICE BLDG 106 & PARKING DECK, CHAMBLEE CAMPUS Key points: 1. Contract achieved its objectives within the allocated budget. 2. Full and open competition likely ensured competitive pricing. 3. Project completion within the estimated timeframe suggests effective management. 4. The contract falls within the broad Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. 5. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 6. The contractor, Gilbane Building Company, has a history of large-scale construction projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The final award amount of $109.1 million for the construction of an office building and parking deck appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional construction projects in Georgia would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bore the primary risk for cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

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 offers. This method typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to present their best pricing and technical solutions. The presence of robust competition is a positive sign for price discovery and achieving value for taxpayer dollars.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to more competitive pricing, which benefits taxpayers by ensuring the government is not overpaying for services or goods.

Public Impact

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) benefits from new facilities to support its operations. The project delivered a new office building and parking deck, enhancing campus infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Chamblee, Georgia. The construction activities likely supported jobs in the local and regional construction industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if initial estimates were inaccurate, though mitigated by fixed-price.
Delays in construction could impact operational readiness if not managed effectively.
Quality control issues could arise in large construction projects if oversight is insufficient.

Positive Signals

Project completed within the scheduled duration, indicating good project management.
Firm fixed-price contract transfers cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. Projects of this scale, involving government facilities, are common and require specialized expertise in managing complex construction processes, adhering to stringent building codes, and ensuring long-term durability. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar federal building projects can vary widely based on location, size, and specific requirements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As a large-scale construction project awarded under full and open competition, it is possible that larger firms were the primary awardees. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses participated as subcontractors or if there were specific provisions to encourage their involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), likely subject to internal HHS oversight and potentially oversight from the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for significant financial activities. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. Transparency is generally maintained through federal contract databases like FPDS, where award details are published.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
CDC Facilities Management
HHS Capital Investments
Government Office Space Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns (mitigated by FFP)
Schedule delays (common in construction)
Quality control issues
Unforeseen site conditions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $109.1 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY. P1997210, OFFICE BLDG 106 & PARKING DECK, CHAMBLEE CAMPUS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $109.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-02-09. End: 2008-09-30.

What was the original estimated cost versus the final award amount, and what factors contributed to any difference?

The provided data shows a final award amount of $109,127,650.88. Without the original estimated cost, a direct comparison is not possible. However, the contract was awarded under a firm fixed-price (FFP) structure. In FFP contracts, the price is set at the time of award, and the contractor is responsible for all costs incurred to complete the work. Any difference between the contractor's estimated costs and actual costs is borne by the contractor, not the government, unless there are contract modifications. Significant differences between an initial estimate and the final award price in an FFP contract often arise from the competitive bidding process itself, where initial estimates might be refined based on market conditions and contractor proposals.

How does the cost per square foot of this building compare to similar federal or commercial office buildings constructed in Georgia during the same period?

To accurately benchmark the cost per square foot, we would need the total square footage of the office building (excluding the parking deck) and compare it to data from similar federal or commercial office buildings constructed in Georgia between 2005 and 2008. Construction costs during that period varied based on materials, complexity, and specific site conditions. Without the square footage, a precise comparison is impossible. However, large institutional projects often have higher per-square-foot costs due to specialized requirements, durability standards, and security features compared to standard commercial office spaces. A detailed analysis would involve accessing construction cost databases and adjusting for regional economic factors and project-specific variables.

What specific risks were identified during the solicitation phase, and how were they mitigated in the contract terms?

The provided data does not detail specific risks identified during the solicitation phase. However, for a large construction project like an office building and parking deck, common risks include: schedule delays (due to weather, labor shortages, material availability), cost overruns (especially in cost-plus contracts, though less so in FFP), design deficiencies, unforeseen site conditions, and contractor performance issues. The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract structure inherently mitigates the risk of cost overruns for the government by locking in the price. Other mitigations typically involve detailed performance specifications, pre-qualification of bidders, robust oversight during construction, liquidated damages clauses for delays, and performance bonds.

What is Gilbane Building Company's track record with similar federal construction projects, particularly for health and science agencies?

Gilbane Building Company has a significant track record in federal construction, including projects for various agencies. While specific details on projects solely for health and science agencies like the CDC are not provided here, their portfolio typically includes large-scale facilities such as courthouses, laboratories, educational institutions, and healthcare facilities. Their experience with complex projects suggests a capability to manage the technical and logistical demands of constructing government buildings. A deeper dive into their past performance ratings and project history within federal contracting databases would offer more specific insights into their suitability and success rate for similar endeavors.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the contract period, and what was their impact?

The provided data does not include information on contract modifications or change orders. For a project spanning over three years (February 2005 to September 2008), it is common for some modifications to occur due to unforeseen circumstances, design clarifications, or minor scope adjustments. However, under a firm fixed-price contract, modifications that increase the price are typically scrutinized closely and reserved for situations where the government directs changes or unforeseen conditions significantly impact the scope. The absence of readily available modification data could indicate a stable contract execution or simply that such details are not highlighted in this summary view.

How does the duration of this project (1329 days) compare to the average duration for similar federal building construction projects?

A duration of 1329 days (approximately 3.6 years) for a project involving an office building and parking deck is within a reasonable range for federal construction. The complexity of the design, site preparation requirements, procurement of specialized materials, and the scale of the project all influence the timeline. Federal projects often face additional layers of review, permitting, and compliance checks compared to private sector projects, which can extend durations. Benchmarking against similar projects would require analyzing data on the square footage, type of facility, and specific agency requirements. However, for a project of this magnitude, a multi-year timeline is not unusual.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 2004N01191

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Gilbane, Inc. (UEI: 022726165)

Address: 3550 ENGINEERING DR, NORCROSS, GA, 30092

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,523,269,002

Exercised Options: $3,523,269,002

Current Obligation: $109,127,651

Timeline