NASA awards $237M contract for industrial building construction in Alabama
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $237,179,593 ($237.2M)
Contractor: GSC Construction, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2006-12-08
End Date: 2013-02-08
Contract Duration: 2,254 days
Daily Burn Rate: $105.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT BUILDING 4601
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $237.2 million to GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT BUILDING 4601 Key points: 1. Contract awarded to GSC Construction, Inc. for a firm-fixed-price project. 2. Project duration spans over 2200 days, indicating a significant construction undertaking. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition. 4. The scope involves the construction of a replacement building. 5. Geographic focus is Alabama, with specific location 'ALABAMA'.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total award amount of $237,179,593 for industrial building construction appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale industrial construction projects for federal agencies would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. Without specific details on the building's size, complexity, and features, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve the quality of services or goods procured.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which will receive a new industrial building. The services delivered include the physical construction of a replacement building. The geographic impact is localized to Alabama, specifically the 'ALABAMA' region. Workforce implications would include construction jobs created during the project's duration.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long project duration (2254 days) could indicate potential for delays and cost overruns if not managed effectively.
- Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to higher initial bids to account for contractor risk.
- Limited competition (2 bidders) might have resulted in less aggressive pricing than a more crowded field.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing the pool of potential contractors.
- Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
- Specific project scope (replacement building) suggests a clear need and objective for NASA.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in construction is often driven by infrastructure needs, facility upgrades, and specialized requirements for agencies like NASA. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal construction projects, particularly those involving industrial or specialized facilities, to gauge cost-effectiveness and market rates.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, GSC Construction, Inc., would determine any subcontracting opportunities based on their own business strategy and project needs.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified building within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facility Construction
- Industrial Facility Development
- Federal Building Projects
- Large-Scale Construction Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to long project duration.
- Risk of material price escalation over the project timeline.
- Limited competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
- Need for robust oversight to ensure quality and adherence to scope.
Tags
construction, industrial-building, nasa, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, alabama, facility-replacement, long-duration-project
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $237.2 million to GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC.. CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT BUILDING 4601
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $237.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-12-08. End: 2013-02-08.
What is the specific purpose and scope of the 'replacement building' being constructed?
The provided data indicates the contract is for 'CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT BUILDING 4601' under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). While the specific function of '4601' is not detailed, the term 'industrial building construction' suggests it is intended for operational, manufacturing, storage, or research and development activities that require industrial-grade facilities. Replacement buildings are often constructed to modernize aging infrastructure, expand capacity, or consolidate operations. A more detailed scope would typically be found in the Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) associated with the contract, outlining specifications for size, materials, utilities, environmental controls, and any specialized equipment integration.
How does the awarded amount of $237 million compare to similar industrial building construction projects for federal agencies?
A direct comparison of the $237 million award for this NASA industrial building construction project requires access to a database of similar federal construction contracts. Factors such as the building's square footage, complexity of design, specific industrial functions (e.g., clean rooms, heavy machinery support, hazardous material handling), location, and prevailing market conditions significantly influence costs. Generally, large-scale industrial facilities can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. Without specific benchmarks for comparable NASA or Department of Defense industrial facilities of similar size and function, it's challenging to definitively state if $237 million represents a high, low, or average cost. However, for a single building project, this is a substantial investment.
What are the potential risks associated with a 2254-day (approximately 6.2 years) construction duration?
A construction duration of 2254 days presents several potential risks. Firstly, the extended timeline increases the likelihood of encountering unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, underground utilities) that could lead to delays and cost increases, even under a firm-fixed-price contract if scope changes are negotiated. Secondly, material costs can fluctuate significantly over a multi-year period, potentially impacting the contractor's profitability if not adequately accounted for in the initial bid. Thirdly, regulatory changes (e.g., environmental, building codes) could necessitate design modifications. Finally, long project durations can lead to workforce continuity challenges and potential loss of institutional knowledge if key personnel change over time. Effective project management, contingency planning, and proactive risk mitigation are crucial for projects of this length.
Given the firm-fixed-price contract type, what is the contractor's risk exposure?
Under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, the contractor, GSC Construction, Inc., assumes the primary risk for cost overruns. This means that the contractor is obligated to complete the project for the agreed-upon price of $237,179,593, regardless of their actual costs. If their expenses exceed this amount due to poor estimating, inefficient performance, or rising material costs, the contractor absorbs the loss. Conversely, if they manage the project efficiently and their costs are lower than anticipated, they realize a higher profit margin. The government's risk is primarily related to the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability or, in extreme cases, contractor default if they become financially insolvent due to cost overruns.
What does the limited competition (2 bidders) imply for NASA and taxpayers?
The fact that only two bids were received for this substantial $237 million industrial building construction contract suggests a potentially limited competitive landscape for this specific project. While full and open competition was utilized, a low number of bidders can sometimes indicate barriers to entry, such as highly specialized requirements, significant bonding capacity needed, or a limited number of qualified contractors in the relevant geographic area or market segment. For NASA, this could mean potentially higher prices than if there had been more competition, as the bidders may have had less incentive to offer their most aggressive pricing. For taxpayers, it implies a reduced likelihood of achieving the lowest possible price for the construction services, although the firm-fixed-price nature still caps the government's direct expenditure.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: HZE
Contractor Details
Address: 1727 WRIGHTSBORO RD, AUGUSTA, GA, 30904
Business Categories: Category Business, Emerging Small Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $237,179,593
Exercised Options: $237,179,593
Current Obligation: $237,179,593
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-12-08
Current End Date: 2013-02-08
Potential End Date: 2013-02-08 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2017-03-13
More Contracts from GSC Construction, Inc.
- Construction Consolidated Medical — $46.2M (Department of Defense)
- Construction of Trainee Barracks Dining Facility, FT. Benning, GA — $18.1M (Department of Defense)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →