DoD's $34.1M Fort Meade Chiller Plant Upgrade Awarded to Walsh Construction via Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,122,305 ($34.1M)

Contractor: Walsh Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-08-30

End Date: 2016-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,858 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 9840 CHILLER PLANT&UPGRADE AT FORT G MEADE MARYLAND

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GEORGE G MEADE, ANNE ARUNDEL County, MARYLAND, 20755

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.1 million to WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 9840 CHILLER PLANT&UPGRADE AT FORT G MEADE MARYLAND Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Walsh Construction Company represents a significant investment in critical infrastructure at Fort Meade. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope and budget, potentially limiting cost overruns if managed effectively. 3. The duration of the contract (1858 days) indicates a complex, long-term project requiring sustained oversight. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, implying a robust bidding process. 5. The project's focus on a chiller plant upgrade points to essential facility maintenance and modernization efforts. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is likely a large business, with potential subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific chiller plant upgrade is challenging without detailed project specifications and comparable market data for similar facilities at military installations. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but the total award amount of $34.1 million over nearly five years suggests a substantial undertaking. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per ton of cooling capacity against industry standards for institutional building construction and HVAC system upgrades.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and considered. The presence of 10 bids (implied by 'no': 10) suggests a competitive environment, which generally favors price discovery and potentially better value for the government. The specific details of the bidding process, including the number of responsive bids and the range of proposed prices, would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for infrastructure projects like this chiller plant upgrade helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. It increases the likelihood that the government secures the best possible price for the required services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel and operations at Fort Meade, Maryland, who will experience improved climate control and facility reliability. The project delivers essential upgrades to critical building infrastructure, ensuring the continued operational effectiveness of the facility. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Meade, Maryland, a key military installation. The project likely involves a significant construction workforce, potentially creating jobs in the Maryland region during its execution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep or unforeseen site conditions in a large construction project, which could impact final costs despite the fixed-price nature.
Ensuring timely completion within the 1858-day timeframe is crucial to avoid operational disruptions.
Quality control and adherence to specifications for complex mechanical systems are paramount for long-term performance.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type provides a degree of cost certainty for the government.
Awarding under full and open competition suggests a thorough vetting of potential contractors and competitive pricing.
The project addresses a critical infrastructure need, contributing to the operational readiness of Fort Meade.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically focusing on institutional and commercial building construction, with a specialization in mechanical systems (chillers). The market for large-scale government construction projects is substantial, often involving specialized contractors capable of handling complex requirements and security protocols inherent in military installations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large HVAC or facility modernization projects at federal sites.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals. This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a large business, Walsh Construction Company. While this may limit direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors on this specific award, large prime contractors are often required to meet subcontracting goals with small businesses on federal projects, which could create indirect opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army or Department of Defense. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services and infrastructure. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Fort Meade Infrastructure Modernization Projects
Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance and Repair
Military Base HVAC System Upgrades
Federal Construction Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring long-term performance and reliability of complex mechanical systems.
Managing supply chain risks for specialized equipment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.1 million to WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 9840 CHILLER PLANT&UPGRADE AT FORT G MEADE MARYLAND

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-08-30. End: 2016-09-30.

What was the specific scope of work for the Building 9840 Chiller Plant upgrade and modernization?

The provided data indicates the contract was for the 'CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 9840 CHILLER PLANT & UPGRADE' at Fort Meade, Maryland. While the exact scope is not detailed, it implies the replacement, repair, or enhancement of existing chiller systems within Building 9840. This typically involves removing old equipment, installing new chillers, associated piping, electrical connections, control systems, and potentially structural or enclosure modifications to accommodate the new or upgraded plant. The goal is usually to improve energy efficiency, increase cooling capacity, enhance reliability, and meet current environmental standards.

How does the $34.1 million cost compare to similar chiller plant upgrade projects at other federal facilities?

Direct cost comparison is difficult without specific project details like square footage, cooling capacity (tons), age of existing systems, and specific site challenges. However, $34.1 million for a major chiller plant upgrade over nearly five years at a large military installation like Fort Meade is substantial. Industry benchmarks for large commercial or institutional chiller plant replacements can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on scale and complexity. Factors such as the need for continuous operation during upgrades, specialized security requirements at military bases, and the specific technological advancements in the new equipment influence the final cost. A detailed analysis would require comparing cost per ton of cooling capacity or cost per square foot served.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or success metrics for this contract?

Specific KPIs for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, for a chiller plant upgrade, typical success metrics would likely include: 1) On-time completion within the 1858-day duration. 2) Adherence to the firm-fixed-price budget of $34.1 million, minimizing cost overruns. 3) Meeting or exceeding specified performance standards for cooling capacity, energy efficiency (e.g., kW/ton), and system reliability. 4) Compliance with all technical specifications, building codes, and environmental regulations. 5) Successful integration of new systems with existing building management and control infrastructure. 6) Minimal disruption to ongoing operations at Fort Meade during the construction and commissioning phases.

What is the track record of Walsh Construction Company on similar federal infrastructure projects?

Walsh Construction Company is a large, established general contractor with a significant history of undertaking complex infrastructure projects, including those for federal agencies and military installations. While specific project details beyond this award are not provided, their portfolio typically includes large-scale construction, such as buildings, transportation infrastructure, and industrial facilities. Their experience likely encompasses managing large budgets, adhering to strict government regulations and security protocols, and working with various federal agencies. A deeper dive into their past performance ratings, past performance questionnaires (PPQs), and any past disputes or claims on similar federal contracts would offer a more comprehensive view of their track record.

Were there any significant risks identified during the bidding or execution phases of this contract?

For a project of this scale and duration, potential risks typically include: 1) Unforeseen site conditions (e.g., subsurface issues, hazardous materials) that could lead to delays and cost increases. 2) Technical challenges in integrating new chiller technology with legacy building systems. 3) Supply chain disruptions affecting critical equipment delivery. 4) Labor availability and cost fluctuations. 5) Potential for scope creep if requirements evolve during the project. 6) Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards and security requirements. The firm-fixed-price contract shifts much of the cost risk to the contractor, but schedule and performance risks remain significant.

How has federal spending on construction and facility upgrades at military bases like Fort Meade trended over the past decade?

Federal spending on construction and facility upgrades at military bases has historically been substantial, driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure, modernize capabilities, and adapt to evolving operational requirements. While specific trends fluctuate based on defense budgets, congressional appropriations, and strategic priorities, there's a consistent allocation towards sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) accounts. Projects like chiller plant upgrades are part of this ongoing investment. Factors such as base realignment and closure (BRAC) actions, new technology integration, and energy efficiency mandates also influence spending patterns. Analyzing historical budget data for the Department of Defense and specific installations like Fort Meade would reveal trends in construction spending categories.

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

Solicitation ID: W912DR11R0029

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Walsh Group Ltd., the (UEI: 121476675)

Address: 929 W ADAMS ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60607

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,122,305

Exercised Options: $34,122,305

Current Obligation: $34,122,305

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 291

Total Subaward Amount: $720,729,813

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline