Fort Belvoir repairs contract awarded to Grunley Construction for over $43.5M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,554,058 ($43.6M)

Contractor: Grunley Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-09-22

End Date: 2021-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,196 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: REPAIR UEPH, FORT BELVOIR, VA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BELVOIR, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22060

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $43.6 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: REPAIR UEPH, FORT BELVOIR, VA Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of major building repairs. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Contract duration of nearly three years indicates a substantial project. 5. Project located in Virginia, impacting local construction workforce. 6. No small business set-aside, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $43.5 million for repairs at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, seems aligned with the scale of commercial and institutional building construction projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale renovation or repair contracts for military installations would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government, transferring risk to the contractor. However, without detailed project specifications and scope of work, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

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 two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant project. While two bidders is better than one, a higher number of bids typically leads to more aggressive pricing and better value for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would further illuminate the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple contractors to offer their best pricing and technical solutions, potentially leading to cost savings and higher quality outcomes.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army and its personnel stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, who will utilize the improved facilities. The contract delivers essential repair and maintenance services for critical infrastructure at a major military installation. The geographic impact is concentrated in Fairfax County, Virginia, supporting the local economy through construction activities. The project likely involves a significant number of skilled construction workers, impacting the regional labor market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if repair needs exceed initial assessments.
Contractor performance history on similar large-scale military projects warrants review.
Ensuring timely completion within the fixed-price structure is crucial.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract mitigates financial risk for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Project addresses essential infrastructure needs, ensuring operational readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the maintenance and modernization of government facilities, including military bases. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction and repair contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of facilities and geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. This means that large businesses were the primary focus of the competition. While this may lead to efficiencies for very large projects, it could limit opportunities for small businesses to participate in significant federal construction contracts and potentially reduce the flow-down of contract dollars to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant project management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to complete the work to specifications within the agreed price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense may conduct audits or investigations if specific concerns regarding fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Fort Belvoir Infrastructure Modernization
Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance
Military Construction Projects
General Services Administration (GSA) Building Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting cost and schedule.
Adequacy of competition based on the number of bids received.
Ensuring quality control throughout the repair process.
Contractor's past performance on similar large-scale federal projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $43.6 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. REPAIR UEPH, FORT BELVOIR, VA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $43.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-09-22. End: 2021-12-31.

What is Grunley Construction Co., Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense on similar projects?

Grunley Construction Co., Inc. has a history of working with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies on large-scale construction and renovation projects. Analyzing their past performance on similar military base repair or construction contracts would be crucial. Key indicators to examine include on-time and on-budget completion rates, quality of work, safety records, and any history of contract disputes or claims. A review of their past performance evaluations, if publicly available, would provide significant insight into their capabilities and reliability for a project of this magnitude and complexity.

How does the awarded price compare to similar building repair contracts at other military installations?

The awarded price of approximately $43.5 million for repairs at Fort Belvoir needs to be benchmarked against similar projects to assess value for money. This comparison should consider the scope of work (e.g., type of buildings, extent of repairs, specific systems involved), the geographic location (which impacts labor and material costs), and the contract type. For instance, comparing it to other firm-fixed-price contracts for major renovations of barracks, administrative buildings, or maintenance facilities at other Army bases of similar size and age would provide a relevant context. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns or a database of comparable contract values adjusted for inflation and regional economic factors, a precise comparison is difficult.

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

While firm-fixed-price contracts are generally advantageous for the government by capping costs, risks can still exist. For this project, potential risks include the contractor encountering unforeseen site conditions (e.g., hazardous materials, structural issues not apparent during inspection) that could lead to change orders or disputes if not managed contractually. Another risk is the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if profit margins are tight, necessitating robust government quality assurance oversight. Furthermore, if the initial scope definition was incomplete, the contractor might leverage the fixed-price nature to resist necessary changes or demand significant price increases for any additions, requiring careful contract administration.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy for a contract of this size and type?

The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered the most effective method for achieving fair pricing and best value for the government, especially for large contracts like this one valued at over $43.5 million. It allows any responsible contractor to bid, maximizing the pool of potential offerors and fostering a competitive environment. However, the effectiveness is contingent on the number of bids received and the clarity of the solicitation documents. Receiving only two bids, as indicated, suggests that while competition was present, it might not have been as robust as desired. A higher number of bids often correlates with more aggressive pricing and innovation. The agency's outreach efforts and the complexity of the requirements also play a role in attracting a wider range of bidders.

What is the historical spending trend for building repairs at Fort Belvoir or similar Army installations?

Analyzing historical spending for building repairs at Fort Belvoir and comparable Army installations is essential for understanding budget allocation and identifying potential trends or anomalies. This involves examining contract data over several fiscal years to see the volume and value of repair contracts awarded. Trends might reveal patterns of deferred maintenance, increased investment in infrastructure, or shifts in contracting strategies. For example, a consistent increase in spending on repairs could indicate aging infrastructure, while a sudden spike might signal a specific modernization initiative. Comparing Fort Belvoir's spending to similar bases helps contextualize whether its repair needs and associated costs are typical or exceptional.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W912DR16R0001

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 15020 SHADY GROVE RD STE 500, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $43,554,058

Exercised Options: $43,554,058

Current Obligation: $43,554,058

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DR17D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline