Grunley Construction awarded $31.8M for facility support, highlighting strong competition in commercial building

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,861,936 ($31.9M)

Contractor: Grunley Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-03-30

End Date: 2026-11-28

Contract Duration: 1,339 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SITE R PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFIELD, ADAMS County, PENNSYLVANIA, 17320

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.9 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: SITE R PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT FACILITY Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the firm-fixed-price structure and duration. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market with potential for competitive pricing. 3. The contract duration of over three years indicates a significant, long-term need. 4. Performance context is within commercial and institutional building construction, a well-established sector. 5. Sector positioning is in construction, supporting federal facility infrastructure. 6. The contract type (firm fixed price) shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's firm-fixed-price nature provides cost certainty. Benchmarking against similar facility support contracts is challenging without more specific scope details. However, the total award amount of $31.8 million over approximately three years suggests a moderate annual expenditure. The competition level implies that pricing was likely scrutinized by multiple bidders, contributing to a fair market price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified, but the use of this procurement method generally suggests a competitive environment. This approach is designed to ensure the government receives the best value by leveraging market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through robust bidding, leading to more efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from enhanced facility support services. Services delivered include construction and maintenance for federal facilities. Geographic impact is centered in Pennsylvania, supporting regional infrastructure. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction professionals and tradespeople in the local area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly, given the multi-year duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period could lead to complacency if performance is not continuously monitored.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure limits cost overruns for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potentially competitive pricing.
Long-term contract allows for consistent support and planning for facility needs.

Sector Analysis

The commercial and institutional building construction sector is a mature industry that supports a wide range of public and private infrastructure projects. Federal spending in this area often focuses on maintaining and upgrading existing facilities or constructing new ones to meet agency needs. This contract fits within the broader category of federal construction spending, which can fluctuate based on infrastructure priorities and budget allocations. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and scale of facility being supported.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it indicate specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. Grunley Construction Co., Inc. is a large business. The absence of small business set-asides or explicit subcontracting goals means that the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors without a formal requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant contracting office within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Military Base Operations Support
Public Works Contracts
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation for contractor.
Potential for scope creep if not rigorously managed through change orders.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.9 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. SITE R PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT FACILITY

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 $31.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-03-30. End: 2026-11-28.

What is the specific scope of 'SITE R PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT FACILITY' and how does it compare to similar facility support contracts?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'SITE R PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT FACILITY' and falls under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). However, the specific scope of services is not detailed. Public works support can encompass a wide range of activities, including maintenance, repair, minor construction, groundskeeping, and utility management for federal facilities. Without a detailed statement of work, direct comparison to similar contracts is difficult. Generally, facility support contracts vary significantly in scope, duration, and total value based on the size and complexity of the facility, the types of services required (e.g., janitorial, security, infrastructure maintenance), and the geographic location. The $31.8 million award over approximately three years suggests a substantial scope, likely involving significant maintenance and potentially minor construction or renovation activities for a large federal site.

How does the $31.8 million award compare to historical spending on facility support by the Department of the Army?

To compare the $31.8 million award to historical spending, one would need to analyze the Department of the Army's budget allocations and contract awards for facility support over previous fiscal years. This specific contract represents a significant investment, but its context within the Army's overall facilities maintenance and operations budget is crucial. For instance, if the Army typically spends billions annually on facility support across all its installations, $31.8 million might represent a routine or moderately sized contract for a specific site or region. Conversely, if this contract is for a particularly large or critical facility, or if it represents a new initiative, its significance increases. Analyzing historical data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for similar contracts awarded by the Army would provide a more robust benchmark for assessing whether this award is typical, high, or low relative to past spending patterns.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely used to evaluate Grunley Construction Co., Inc.'s performance on this contract?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a facility support contract like this would typically focus on timeliness, quality, cost control, and safety. For construction and maintenance aspects, KPIs might include adherence to project schedules, completion of work within budget (though less critical for firm-fixed-price unless change orders are involved), quality of workmanship (e.g., defect rates, compliance with building codes), and response times for emergency repairs. For ongoing support services, KPIs could involve response times to service calls, customer satisfaction ratings from facility users, preventative maintenance completion rates, and compliance with environmental and safety regulations. The contract's statement of work and performance work statement would explicitly define these KPIs and the metrics used to measure them, often tied to payment or award fees.

What is the risk profile associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this duration for facility support?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract generally shifts the majority of cost risk to the contractor, Grunley Construction Co., Inc. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of unforeseen cost increases. For a multi-year contract (1339 days, approx. 3.7 years), the primary risks for the contractor include potential escalation in material and labor costs, unforeseen site conditions, and scope creep if not managed through formal change order processes. For the government, the main risks are ensuring the contractor has the capacity and incentive to maintain quality throughout the contract term and that the initial price adequately reflects the anticipated work. However, FFP contracts offer significant budget certainty for the government, which is a major advantage.

How does the geographic location (Pennsylvania) influence the competition and potential costs for this contract?

The contract is to be performed in Pennsylvania. The influence of this geographic location on competition and costs depends on the local construction market dynamics within Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvania has a robust construction industry with numerous qualified firms capable of undertaking large-scale facility support projects, then full and open competition is likely to yield competitive pricing. Conversely, if the specific region within Pennsylvania has limited construction capacity or is experiencing a boom that drives up labor and material costs, competition might be less intense, and prices could be higher. The presence of established local contractors can foster competition, while a lack of qualified bidders could lead to higher bids or necessitate broader outreach, potentially increasing administrative costs. The specific site ('SITE R') would also determine the precise locality and its associated market conditions.

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: W912DR22R0009

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: $31,866,936

Exercised Options: $31,861,936

Current Obligation: $31,861,936

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DR22D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline