DoD awards $27M for SOPAF Building B construction, with a 33-month duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,008,772 ($27.0M)

Contractor: Grunley Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-09-28

End Date: 2026-12-14

Contract Duration: 807 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SOPAF BUILDING B

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFIELD, ADAMS County, PENNSYLVANIA, 17320

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.0 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: SOPAF BUILDING B Key points: 1. Contract awarded to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for building construction. 2. The contract is a firm-fixed-price delivery order. 3. Project duration is 807 days, spanning over two years. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition. 5. The agency is the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220 for Commercial and Institutional Building Construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $27 million for a building construction project of this scale appears within a reasonable range, though specific benchmarks for similar facilities are not provided. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that cost overruns are the contractor's responsibility, which can be a positive for value if managed effectively. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar projects in the same geographic region, a definitive assessment of value for money is challenging. The duration of over two years also implies a significant project scope.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and terms for the government. The open competition suggests a healthy market for this type of construction service.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential contractors, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing the best possible price and quality for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, who will receive a new building facility. The project will deliver construction services for a commercial and institutional building. The geographic impact is localized to Pennsylvania, where the construction will take place. The project will likely have implications for the construction workforce in the region, creating jobs and demand for skilled labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions requiring change orders.
Market fluctuations in material costs could impact profitability if not adequately managed under fixed-price.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract limits government exposure to cost overruns.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Long-term duration allows for phased construction and potential for learning curve efficiencies.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the economy, with government contracts forming a substantial portion of demand. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a category that includes a wide range of facilities. Benchmarking this specific contract's value against similar government-funded construction projects would require access to a broader dataset of comparable projects, considering factors like size, complexity, and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb) is false, and there is no indication of a small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not explicitly detailed in the provided information. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting occurs.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) from the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, where the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and specific oversight activities may not be publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if contractor underestimates expenses.
Risk of project delays impacting operational needs.
Quality control challenges in large-scale construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.0 million to GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. SOPAF BUILDING B

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 $27.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-09-28. End: 2026-12-14.

What is the historical spending pattern for GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. with the Department of Defense requires access to a comprehensive federal procurement database. Without this specific data, it's impossible to provide a detailed analysis. However, a general approach would involve querying databases like USAspending.gov or FPDS for all contracts awarded to this contractor by the DoD. Key metrics to examine would include the total dollar value of contracts over time, the types of services or goods provided, the agencies within the DoD that awarded the contracts, and the contract types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus). Trends in contract awards, such as increasing or decreasing volume, or shifts in the types of projects undertaken, would offer insights into the contractor's relationship and performance history with the DoD. A significant volume of past contracts could indicate a strong track record and established working relationship, while a lack of recent awards might suggest otherwise.

How does the $27 million contract value compare to similar institutional building construction projects awarded by the Department of the Army in Pennsylvania?

To compare the $27 million contract value for SOPAF Building B with similar projects, one would need to access a database of federal construction contracts, filter by the Department of the Army, the state of Pennsylvania, and the NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) or similar codes for institutional construction. The comparison should also account for project size (square footage), complexity, and the year of award to adjust for inflation and market conditions. Without this specific comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if $27 million is high, low, or average. However, for a significant institutional building, this value is plausible. A higher number of bids in the original competition could suggest the price was competitive. If similar projects in the region were awarded for substantially less, it might raise questions about the value for money in this instance.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a multi-year construction project like SOPAF Building B?

The primary risk associated with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for a multi-year construction project like SOPAF Building B lies with the contractor. GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. assumes the risk of cost overruns due to factors such as unexpected material price increases, labor shortages, unforeseen site conditions, or design changes initiated by the government. If the contractor's costs exceed the fixed price, their profit margin will be reduced, or they could incur a loss. For the government, the main risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if they underestimate costs, although quality assurance measures are in place to mitigate this. Delays, while a risk for both parties, can be particularly costly for the contractor under an FFP agreement if they are not due to government-caused issues. The long duration (807 days) amplifies these risks due to the increased potential for market volatility and unforeseen events.

What performance metrics or milestones are likely being tracked for the SOPAF Building B construction project?

For a construction project like SOPAF Building B, performance metrics and milestones are crucial for ensuring timely completion and adherence to specifications. Key performance indicators (KPIs) likely tracked by the Department of the Army would include adherence to the project schedule, with milestones such as foundation completion, structural framing, enclosure, interior fit-out, and final handover. Quality control would be paramount, measured through inspections, adherence to building codes, material testing, and defect resolution rates. Budget adherence, while less critical for the government under a firm-fixed-price contract (as the contractor bears cost risk), would still be monitored for potential issues that could lead to claims or delays. Safety performance, measured by incident rates (e.g., lost-time injuries), is also a critical metric. Finally, compliance with contract terms, including environmental regulations and reporting requirements, would be continuously assessed.

What is the significance of the 'PA' (Pennsylvania) designation in the contract data?

The 'PA' designation in the contract data signifies that the primary place of performance or the location of the work for the SOPAF Building B construction project is Pennsylvania. This is a crucial piece of information for several reasons. Geographically, it indicates where the economic impact of the contract will be felt, including job creation and spending within the local economy. It also informs logistical considerations for the project, such as transportation of materials and workforce availability. For federal agencies, tracking performance by state can be important for understanding regional distribution of federal spending and for meeting any state-specific reporting requirements or economic development goals. It also helps in comparing contract values and costs against regional benchmarks for construction projects.

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: $27,536,772

Exercised Options: $27,008,772

Current Obligation: $27,008,772

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