State Department's $151.5M construction contract awarded through full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $151,549,458 ($151.5M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2003-12-12

End Date: 2009-07-30

Contract Duration: 2,057 days

Daily Burn Rate: $73.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $151.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract was a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, indicating price certainty. 3. Duration of over 2000 days suggests a long-term, potentially complex construction project. 4. The award was made to domestic awardees, but specific entities are undisclosed. 5. The contract falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a broad category. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting direct small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of specific project details and comparable contract data. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, but the total value of over $151 million for commercial and institutional building construction over a period of approximately 5.7 years requires further scrutiny to assess if it represents good value. Without knowing the scope of work, location, and specific deliverables, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult.

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 a bid. With three bidders, the competition level appears moderate. This suggests that the government likely received competitive pricing, but the limited number of bidders could mean that the full potential for price reduction through broader competition was not realized.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices. However, with only three bidders, the savings might be less substantial than if a larger pool of competitors had participated.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the domestic construction firms that were awarded the contract, providing them with significant revenue and project opportunities. The services delivered involve the construction of commercial and institutional buildings, which could include government facilities, administrative buildings, or other related infrastructure. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the United States, given the domestic awardees, but the specific locations of the construction projects are not detailed. Workforce implications include job creation within the construction sector, potentially supporting skilled trades and related support personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding specific domestic awardees hinders assessment of contractor track record and potential conflicts of interest.
The broad nature of 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' makes it difficult to assess the specific value and necessity of the services without further detail.
The duration of the contract (over 2000 days) could introduce risks related to cost escalation or scope creep if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a commitment to a fair and transparent procurement process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty and limits the government's exposure to cost overruns.
The contract was awarded to domestic entities, supporting the U.S. economy and workforce.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the design and construction of a wide range of non-residential buildings, including offices, retail spaces, educational facilities, and government buildings. The total federal spending on construction can fluctuate significantly year-to-year, but contracts of this magnitude are typical for major infrastructure or facility development projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects would require detailed scope and location information.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. This suggests that the primary awardees were likely larger construction firms capable of undertaking a project of this scale. The absence of a small business set-aside means that direct opportunities for small businesses through this specific contract may be limited, although they could potentially participate as subcontractors if such arrangements were made by the prime contractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and relevant program officials within the Department of State. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited by the undisclosed nature of the specific awardees and project details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Federal Building Construction Projects
General Services Administration (GSA) Construction Contracts
Department of Defense Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Undisclosed Awardees
Lack of Specific Project Details
Long Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $151.5 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $151.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-12-12. End: 2009-07-30.

What specific types of commercial and institutional buildings were constructed under this contract, and where were they located?

The provided data classifies this contract under 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' but does not specify the exact types of buildings or their geographic locations. This information is crucial for understanding the scope and impact of the contract. For instance, knowing if these were administrative offices, specialized facilities, or housing would clarify the purpose. Similarly, the location would indicate the regional economic impact and the specific needs being met. Without these details, it's impossible to provide a precise answer regarding the nature and placement of the constructed facilities.

Can the value of this $151.5 million contract be benchmarked against similar construction projects awarded by the Department of State or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking this $151.5 million contract against similar projects is challenging without more specific details about the scope of work, the type of buildings constructed, and their locations. Federal construction contracts vary widely in cost based on these factors, as well as prevailing labor and material costs in specific regions. While the total value is substantial, its 'fairness' or 'value for money' can only be assessed by comparing it to projects of comparable complexity, size, and purpose. For example, constructing a secure embassy annex would have different cost drivers than building a standard administrative office building. A comprehensive comparison would require access to detailed project specifications and cost breakdowns for other relevant federal construction awards.

What was the track record of the domestic awardees in completing large-scale construction projects for the federal government prior to this award?

The provided data identifies the awardees as 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', which prevents any assessment of their prior track record. To evaluate the contractor's reliability and past performance, it would be necessary to know the specific companies that received this contract. Federal agencies typically maintain performance records for contractors, which are used in future procurement decisions. Without knowing the identities of these awardees, it is impossible to determine if they have a history of successfully completing similar large-scale construction projects on time and within budget, or if they have faced any performance issues on previous government contracts.

Given the firm fixed-price contract type, what mechanisms were in place to manage potential cost overruns or scope creep during the contract's execution?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide cost certainty by fixing the price regardless of the contractor's actual costs. However, managing scope creep and ensuring adherence to the original specifications are critical. For this contract, oversight mechanisms would likely include regular progress reviews, site inspections, and change order management processes. The Department of State's contracting officer and project managers would be responsible for ensuring that any proposed changes are formally evaluated for their impact on cost and schedule, and that only necessary and approved modifications are incorporated. Robust documentation and clear communication channels are essential to prevent scope creep and maintain control over the project's final cost.

How does the $151.5 million spending on this single construction contract compare to the Department of State's overall annual budget for facilities and infrastructure?

The $151.5 million allocated to this single construction contract represents a significant investment. To contextualize this spending, it needs to be compared against the Department of State's overall budget for facilities and infrastructure. For example, if the department's annual budget for such projects is typically in the hundreds of millions or billions, this contract might represent a substantial but manageable portion. Conversely, if the annual budget is much smaller, this single contract could dominate facility spending for a given period. Without access to the Department of State's historical budget allocations for facilities and infrastructure, it is difficult to definitively state how this $151.5 million expenditure fits into the broader financial picture.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this construction project, and how was contractor performance evaluated against them?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this construction contract. Typically, for large construction projects, KPIs would include adherence to schedule, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, and completion within the fixed price. The Department of State's contracting officer and project management team would be responsible for monitoring these aspects throughout the contract duration. Performance evaluations would likely involve regular site visits, quality assurance checks, progress reports from the contractor, and potentially post-occupancy reviews. Formal performance assessments, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, would document the contractor's adherence to these KPIs.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $151,549,458

Exercised Options: $151,549,458

Current Obligation: $151,549,458

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline