HHS awarded $109M for facilities management and design services to Gilbane Building Company over 12 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $109,249,720 ($109.2M)

Contractor: Gilbane Building Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2004-09-28

End Date: 2016-11-30

Contract Duration: 4,446 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TAS::75 0849::TAS BLDGS&FAC / ADMIN&SVC BLDGS

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20892

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $109.2 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for work described as: TAS::75 0849::TAS BLDGS&FAC / ADMIN&SVC BLDGS Key points: 1. The contract provided comprehensive facilities management and interior design services, indicating a long-term need for specialized support. 2. A firm-fixed-price structure suggests predictable costs for the government, though it may limit flexibility for unforeseen changes. 3. The extensive duration of the contract (over 12 years) implies a stable, ongoing requirement for these services. 4. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these services. 5. The services were delivered in Maryland, indicating a localized impact for this specific contract. 6. The contract's value places it in the upper tier of federal service contracts, requiring careful performance monitoring.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of approximately $109 million over 12 years averages to about $9 million annually. Without specific benchmarks for interior design and facilities management services of this scale and scope, a direct comparison is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be advantageous for the government if managed effectively. The long duration indicates a consistent need and potentially a stable pricing agreement over time.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a competitive environment for these types of services. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically leads to better pricing for taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to offer their best terms and pricing to win the contract.

Public Impact

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other Health and Human Services (HHS) facilities benefited from improved infrastructure and design. Services included interior design and facilities management, contributing to the operational efficiency and aesthetic quality of federal buildings. The contract's impact was primarily localized to Maryland, where the facilities are located. The contract supported jobs within the architecture, engineering, and construction management sectors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to complacency or reduced innovation if not actively managed.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to scope creep if not clearly defined and managed.
Reliance on a single contractor for over a decade may reduce market options for future needs.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
Long-term contract indicates a stable and reliable service provider for critical facilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on architectural, engineering, and facilities management. The market for these services is substantial, with numerous firms capable of undertaking large-scale government contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal contracts for similar facility management and design services across various agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific contract may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

As a definitive contract awarded through full and open competition, it would be subject to standard federal procurement oversight. The specific oversight mechanisms would depend on the agency's internal policies and the contract's terms and conditions. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Buildings Fund
GSA Public Buildings Service
Architectural and Engineering Services Contracts
Facilities Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may reduce flexibility and market responsiveness.
Potential for cost increases if scope changes significantly under FFP structure.
Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders detailed evaluation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $109.2 million to GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY. TAS::75 0849::TAS BLDGS&FAC / ADMIN&SVC BLDGS

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 (National Institutes of Health).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $109.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-28. End: 2016-11-30.

What was the specific scope of 'Interior Design Services' and 'Admin & Service Buildings' covered under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract (TAS 75 0849) covered 'TAS BLDGS&FAC / ADMIN&SVC BLDGS' and was for 'Interior Design Services'. While the exact scope isn't detailed, 'Admin & Service Buildings' typically refers to facilities used for administrative operations, support services, and general building management rather than specialized research or clinical spaces. 'Interior Design Services' would encompass planning, designing, and overseeing the implementation of interior spaces, including space planning, furniture selection, finishes, lighting, and potentially wayfinding and branding elements within these administrative buildings. The contract likely aimed to improve the functionality, aesthetics, and employee experience within these HHS facilities.

How did the annual spending under this contract compare to other similar federal contracts for facilities management and interior design?

The contract's total value of approximately $109 million over 144 months (12 years) averages to about $9.1 million per year. Benchmarking this against similar federal contracts requires access to detailed data on contracts with comparable scope (facilities management and interior design), duration, and agency (e.g., HHS, NIH). Generally, large-scale, long-term facilities management contracts for major government installations can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars annually. Without specific comparable contract data, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract's annual spending was high, low, or average. However, the significant total value suggests it was a substantial requirement.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Gilbane Building Company's performance over the contract's lifespan?

Specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract are not detailed in the provided summary data. However, typical KPIs for facilities management and interior design contracts often include metrics related to response times for service requests, building system uptime (e.g., HVAC, electrical), preventative maintenance completion rates, project completion within budget and schedule, client satisfaction surveys, safety incident rates, and adherence to design standards and regulations. For interior design, KPIs might also include user satisfaction with the new spaces and achievement of functional and aesthetic goals.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders that altered the original scope or cost?

The provided data does not include details on contract modifications or change orders. However, a contract spanning over 12 years (4446 days duration) is highly likely to have undergone modifications. These could range from adjustments in scope, changes in service levels, updates to building codes or regulations, or modifications to pricing based on economic factors, if the contract terms allowed. Without access to the contract's modification history, it's impossible to assess their impact on the original scope or cost.

What is the track record of Gilbane Building Company with federal contracts, particularly within HHS or similar agencies?

Gilbane Building Company has a significant track record with federal contracts across various agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and others, often involving large-scale construction, renovation, and facilities management projects. Their experience often includes work on complex facilities such as hospitals, laboratories, and administrative centers. While specific performance details for this particular HHS contract are not provided, Gilbane's general history suggests they are a capable large contractor experienced in managing substantial federal projects. A deeper dive into their past performance ratings and any past performance issues on similar contracts would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

How did the firm-fixed-price (FFP) structure impact the government's ability to manage costs versus potential flexibility?

The Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) structure, as used in this contract, is designed to provide the government with cost certainty. The contractor, Gilbane Building Company, assumes the primary risk for cost overruns. This means the government knows the total price upfront, simplifying budgeting and financial planning. However, FFP contracts can sometimes limit flexibility. If unforeseen issues arise or the scope needs to change significantly, modifications can be complex and may still lead to increased costs or require careful negotiation. For long-term contracts like this, the initial pricing must be robust enough to account for potential market fluctuations or unforeseen challenges over the extended period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Specialized Design Services › Interior Design Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Solicitation ID: 29204P(CL)0314

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Address: 20707-3589

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $855,715,586

Exercised Options: $855,069,007

Current Obligation: $109,249,720

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline