DHS awarded Skanska USA $11.8M for building renovation, highlighting non-competitive contract for critical infrastructure

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,782,025 ($11.8M)

Contractor: Skanska USA Building Incorporated (2540)

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-04-19

End Date: 2008-05-30

Contract Duration: 772 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.3K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION: RENOVATION OF BUILDING 76 FOR THE COUNTERTERRORISM

Place of Performance

Location: BRUNSWICK, GLYNN County, GEORGIA, 31524

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $11.8 million to SKANSKA USA BUILDING INCORPORATED (2540) for work described as: CONSTRUCTION: RENOVATION OF BUILDING 76 FOR THE COUNTERTERRORISM Key points: 1. Contract awarded via non-competitive means, raising questions about price discovery and potential for cost overruns. 2. Fixed-price contract structure aims to control costs, but initial award value may not reflect final expenditure. 3. Project duration of 772 days suggests a complex renovation, potentially involving unforeseen challenges. 4. Awarded by DHS, this contract supports critical counterterrorism training facilities. 5. The contract's value is significant within the context of institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this specific renovation against similar projects is challenging due to unique facility requirements and the non-competitive nature of the award. The firm fixed-price contract provides some cost certainty, but the initial award of $11.8 million for a 772-day duration requires scrutiny to ensure value for money. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is optimal.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order. The specific justification for this limited competition is not detailed in the provided data. A sole-source award limits the opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced innovation compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competition, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs.

Public Impact

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center personnel benefit from improved facilities. Renovation of Building 76 enhances counterterrorism training capabilities. The project's geographic impact is localized to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. Construction workforce in Georgia likely benefited from employment opportunities during the renovation period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification raises concerns about fairness and efficiency.
Long project duration could indicate scope creep or unforeseen complexities, impacting final cost and timeline.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides a degree of cost control.
Award supports critical national security infrastructure (counterterrorism training).
Contract awarded to a known entity (Skanska USA Building Incorporated) with established construction capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. The market for such construction services is substantial, driven by government and private sector demand for new facilities and renovations. This specific project addresses the unique needs of a federal law enforcement training facility, which may command specialized construction expertise and materials, influencing its cost relative to general commercial construction.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Skanska USA Building Incorporated actively engages small businesses as subcontractors, which is not specified here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Homeland Security's internal procurement and project management offices. Given it's a construction project, regular site inspections and progress reviews would be standard. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature of the award; further details on oversight would require access to internal DHS documentation or Inspector General reports.

Related Government Programs

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Operations
Department of Homeland Security Infrastructure Projects
Counterterrorism Facility Construction
Government Building Renovations

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Potential for cost overruns due to lack of competition
Long project duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $11.8 million to SKANSKA USA BUILDING INCORPORATED (2540). CONSTRUCTION: RENOVATION OF BUILDING 76 FOR THE COUNTERTERRORISM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SKANSKA USA BUILDING INCORPORATED (2540).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-04-19. End: 2008-05-30.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a non-competitive basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded as a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER' (CT: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER). However, the specific justification for this sole-source award is not detailed. Typically, non-competitive awards are justified under circumstances such as urgent and compelling needs, the unavailability of other sources, or when only one responsible source can provide the required services or supplies. Without further documentation from the Department of Homeland Security, the precise rationale remains unknown. This lack of transparency can be a concern for ensuring fair and efficient use of taxpayer funds.

How does the awarded amount of $11.8 million compare to similar building renovations for federal law enforcement training facilities?

Directly comparing the $11.8 million award for Building 76 renovation to similar projects is challenging without more specific project details (e.g., scope of work, square footage, specific upgrades) and a broader dataset of comparable federal facility renovations. However, for a significant renovation project lasting over two years (772 days), this value is substantial but not necessarily outside the expected range for specialized government infrastructure. The non-competitive nature of the award, however, makes it difficult to ascertain if this represents optimal market pricing. Further analysis would require benchmarking against projects with similar complexity, security requirements, and geographic location.

What are the potential risks associated with a non-competitive contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risks associated with a non-competitive contract of this magnitude ($11.8 million) and duration (772 days) include potential cost overruns, reduced quality, and lack of innovation. Without competitive pressure, the contractor may have less incentive to control costs or deliver the highest quality work efficiently. The long duration increases the risk of unforeseen issues arising, such as material price fluctuations or changes in project requirements, which can lead to change orders and further cost increases. Additionally, the lack of competition means taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible value for their investment.

What is the track record of Skanska USA Building Incorporated in executing similar federal construction contracts?

Skanska USA Building Incorporated is a large, established construction firm with a significant track record of undertaking complex projects, including federal contracts. While specific performance details for this particular $11.8 million renovation are not provided, Skanska generally has experience in large-scale commercial and institutional building construction. Assessing their track record would involve reviewing past federal contract performance data, including any history of cost overruns, schedule delays, or quality issues on similar projects. Their size and experience suggest a capacity to handle the project, but past performance on comparable federal contracts would offer a more definitive view.

How does the firm fixed-price contract type mitigate or exacerbate risks in this scenario?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is intended to mitigate cost risks for the government by establishing a ceiling price for the work. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns. This incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and complete the project within the agreed-upon budget. However, in a non-competitive scenario, the initial price might be set higher than it would be in a competitive environment. Furthermore, if unforeseen issues arise that are outside the contractor's control (e.g., differing site conditions), change orders could still increase the total cost, although the FFP structure aims to limit this.

What is the historical spending pattern for renovations at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center?

The provided data only includes details for this specific $11.8 million renovation contract awarded in 2006. To understand historical spending patterns for renovations at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), a broader analysis of FLETC's procurement history would be necessary. This would involve examining past contracts for facility maintenance, upgrades, and new construction over several fiscal years. Such an analysis could reveal trends in contract types, average project costs, frequency of renovations, and the typical procurement methods used (competitive vs. non-competitive) for FLETC facilities.

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: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: HSFLR040011

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 70 ELLIS ST NE, ATLANTA, GA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,782,025

Exercised Options: $11,782,025

Current Obligation: $11,782,025

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSFLGL05D00015

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline