VA awards $42.8M construction contract to Roy Anderson Corp, highlighting fixed-price efficiency

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $42,845,047 ($42.8M)

Contractor: ROY Anderson Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Start Date: 2012-11-30

End Date: 2016-05-06

Contract Duration: 1,253 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: BILOXI, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39530

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Veterans Affairs obligated $42.8 million to ROY ANDERSON CORP for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract awarded using a firm-fixed-price structure, aiming to control costs. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 1253 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. The award was made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, focusing on facility construction. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Roy Anderson Corp.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's firm-fixed-price nature is a positive indicator for cost control. Without specific benchmarks for similar VA construction projects in Mississippi, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the total award amount of $42.8 million for a project of this duration and scope suggests a substantial investment. Further analysis would require comparing the final cost against initial estimates and similar projects.

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 bids. The presence of 8 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and potentially leads to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

Veterans will benefit from improved or new facilities managed by the VA. The contract supports the construction of commercial and institutional buildings. The project's geographic impact is centered in Mississippi. The construction activities will likely involve a significant workforce, creating employment opportunities in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in a fixed-price contract.
Dependence on a single contractor, Roy Anderson Corp, for project completion.
The long duration could lead to potential delays or scope creep if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to an established entity, Roy Anderson Corp, may indicate prior experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry. The Department of Veterans Affairs frequently engages in construction projects to maintain and expand its healthcare and administrative facilities. Benchmarking this spending would involve comparing it to other large-scale federal construction projects, particularly those undertaken by agencies with similar facility needs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger firm, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless Roy Anderson Corp actively engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Department of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset and Business Development
Federal Buildings Fund
Military Construction

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of delays.
Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in fixed-price contract.
Dependence on a single contractor for project completion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Veterans Affairs awarded $42.8 million to ROY ANDERSON CORP. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROY ANDERSON CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Veterans Affairs (Department of Veterans Affairs).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $42.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-11-30. End: 2016-05-06.

What is the track record of Roy Anderson Corp with the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Information regarding Roy Anderson Corp's specific track record with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not detailed in the provided data. However, the award of a definitive contract valued at $42.8 million suggests a level of confidence from the VA in the contractor's capabilities. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance reviews, any history of contract disputes or modifications, and the successful completion of previous VA projects. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases and contract award histories would be necessary to ascertain the extent and nature of their prior engagements with the VA and their performance outcomes.

How does the $42.8 million award compare to similar VA construction projects?

Comparing the $42.8 million award to similar Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) construction projects requires access to a broader dataset of recent VA contracts within the commercial and institutional building construction sector. Factors such as project scope, location, specific facility type (e.g., hospital wing, administrative building, clinic), and prevailing market conditions at the time of award significantly influence cost. Without specific comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively benchmark this award. However, for a project spanning over 1000 days, this amount represents a substantial investment, and its value would be best assessed against projects of similar complexity and scale undertaken by the VA or other federal agencies in comparable geographic regions.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract?

The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract, while generally favorable for cost control, revolve around potential unforeseen issues. If the contractor, Roy Anderson Corp, encounters unexpected site conditions, material cost escalations beyond what was reasonably anticipated, or design flaws, they bear the financial burden of these overruns. This could incentivize the contractor to cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability, although contract specifications and oversight should mitigate this. Conversely, if the government's initial scope definition was incomplete or inaccurate, the contractor might seek change orders, potentially increasing the total cost. Effective project management and clear contract terms are crucial to mitigating these risks.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for this type of construction contract?

Full and open competition is generally considered a highly effective mechanism for ensuring value in federal construction contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that 8 bidders participated in this contract award suggests that the market was sufficiently robust to generate competitive offers. This broad participation increases the likelihood that the government secured a fair market price. However, the effectiveness is also contingent on the clarity and completeness of the solicitation documents and the evaluation criteria used to select the winning bid.

What is the historical spending pattern for commercial and institutional building construction by the VA?

Historical spending patterns for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) typically show significant and consistent investment. The VA manages a vast portfolio of healthcare facilities, administrative buildings, and research centers, necessitating ongoing construction, renovation, and maintenance. Annual spending in this category can fluctuate based on major capital initiatives, infrastructure upgrades, and the need to modernize aging facilities. While the specific $42.8 million award is a single data point, the VA's overall budget allocation for construction and facilities management reflects a sustained commitment to its infrastructure, often amounting to billions of dollars annually across numerous projects nationwide.

What are the implications of the 1253-day contract duration on project management and oversight?

A contract duration of 1253 days (approximately 3.4 years) for a construction project of this magnitude implies a complex undertaking requiring sustained project management and rigorous oversight. Long durations increase the risk of scope creep, potential delays due to unforeseen circumstances (weather, material availability, regulatory changes), and the need for consistent contractor performance monitoring over an extended period. The Department of Veterans Affairs would need dedicated personnel to oversee progress, manage change orders, ensure quality control, and maintain communication with Roy Anderson Corp throughout the project lifecycle. Effective planning, phased milestones, and regular performance reviews are critical to successfully navigating such a lengthy contract and ensuring the project stays on track and within budget.

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

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tutor Perini Corporation (UEI: 006954432)

Address: 11400 REICHOLD RD, GULFPORT, MS, 39503

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $42,845,047

Exercised Options: $42,845,047

Current Obligation: $42,845,047

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline