Army awards $48.8M for West Point Science Center renovation, a large project for Consigli Construction

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,836,994 ($48.8M)

Contractor: Consigli Construction CO., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-07-29

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,254 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONVERSION/RENOVATION OF USMA BUILDING 757 (SCIENCE CENTER)

Place of Performance

Location: WEST POINT, ORANGE County, NEW YORK, 10996

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $48.8 million to CONSIGLI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. for work described as: CONVERSION/RENOVATION OF USMA BUILDING 757 (SCIENCE CENTER) Key points: 1. The contract value of $48.8 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure at West Point. 2. The project involved the conversion and renovation of a key academic building, impacting educational facilities. 3. A firm-fixed-price contract structure suggests a defined scope and cost control measures. 4. The duration of the contract, over 2200 days, indicates a complex and lengthy construction undertaking. 5. The award was made under full and open competition, implying a broad market search. 6. The geographic location in New York is noted for its construction market dynamics.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $48.8 million for the renovation of a science center at West Point appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building renovations would provide further context, but the firm-fixed-price nature suggests that the initial pricing was competitive. The duration of the contract (over 6 years) also points to a substantial scope of work.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that the Army sought bids from all responsible sources. With 14 bidders, the competition level was robust, suggesting a healthy market interest and providing the agency with multiple options to evaluate. This broad competition is generally expected to drive more competitive pricing and better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best terms.

Public Impact

Cadets and faculty at the United States Military Academy at West Point benefit from modernized science facilities. The renovation enhances the educational environment and research capabilities within the Science Center. The project's impact is concentrated in West Point, New York, supporting local construction and related industries. The construction activities likely involved a significant workforce, contributing to employment in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise during the lengthy renovation period.
Delays in project completion could impact academic schedules and facility availability.
Ensuring quality of work over an extended construction timeline requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process leading to potentially better value.
The selection of a single contractor for the entire project can streamline management and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The value of $48.8 million positions it as a large-scale project. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar renovations of educational or institutional facilities at federal installations would be relevant for a deeper analysis of value for money.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor utilizes small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON)
Facilities Engineering and Maintenance
Academic Facility Upgrades
Department of Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays due to complexity of renovation.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions impacting budget and timeline.
Ensuring long-term durability and functionality of renovated spaces.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $48.8 million to CONSIGLI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.. CONVERSION/RENOVATION OF USMA BUILDING 757 (SCIENCE CENTER)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CONSIGLI 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 $48.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-07-29. End: 2015-09-30.

What is the track record of Consigli Construction Co., Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Consigli Construction Co., Inc. has a history of performing work for the federal government, including projects with the Department of Defense. While this specific contract for the USMA Building 757 renovation is a significant award, their broader federal portfolio would need to be examined to fully assess their track record. Key indicators would include past performance on similar-sized projects, adherence to schedules and budgets, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. A review of their federal contract history, accessible through databases like SAM.gov or FPDS, would provide more granular detail on their experience and reliability in executing government projects.

How does the cost per square foot of this renovation compare to similar projects at other military installations or educational institutions?

To benchmark the cost per square foot, we would need the total square footage of USMA Building 757. Assuming a typical size for such a facility, the total contract value of $48.8 million could be divided by the square footage to derive a cost per square foot. This figure would then be compared against industry averages for institutional building renovations, particularly those undertaken by government entities. Factors like the extent of structural work, MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) upgrades, and interior finishes significantly influence this metric. Without the specific square footage, a precise comparison is not possible, but the overall value suggests a substantial renovation.

What were the primary risk indicators identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract?

Primary risk indicators for a project of this magnitude and duration often include potential for unforeseen site conditions (e.g., hazardous materials, structural issues), complexity of integrating new systems with existing infrastructure, and the contractor's ability to manage a long-term project effectively. Given the firm-fixed-price nature, risks related to cost escalation due to material price fluctuations or scope creep would be borne by the contractor, but could lead to claims or delays if not managed properly. The extensive competition (14 bidders) suggests that many firms assessed the risks and found the project feasible, but the agency would have evaluated each bidder's technical approach, past performance, and financial stability to mitigate these risks.

How effective has the Department of the Army been in managing large-scale construction projects like this one to ensure timely completion and budget adherence?

The Department of the Army, through its various engineering and contracting commands, manages a vast portfolio of construction projects. Their effectiveness can vary depending on the specific project, location, and oversight resources. For large-scale projects like the USMA Science Center renovation, success hinges on robust project management, diligent contract administration, and proactive risk mitigation. Historical data on Army construction projects would reveal trends in completion times and budget performance. Factors such as the use of experienced project managers, clear communication channels, and effective change order management are critical to ensuring projects are delivered successfully.

What has been the historical spending trend for academic facility renovations at West Point over the last decade?

Analyzing historical spending on academic facility renovations at West Point over the last decade would provide context for the $48.8 million award. This would involve aggregating data on similar projects, noting their scope, duration, and final costs. Trends might indicate an increasing investment in infrastructure, a backlog of deferred maintenance, or specific modernization initiatives. Understanding this historical pattern helps assess whether this contract represents a typical investment or a significant surge in spending for academic facilities at the institution.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the performance of this contract, and what was their impact?

Information regarding contract modifications and change orders for this specific contract would typically be found in contract modification databases or agency reports. Significant modifications could indicate unforeseen issues, scope adjustments, or contractor claims. Analyzing these changes is crucial for understanding the project's evolution, the effectiveness of the initial contract scope, and the contractor's ability to adapt to changing requirements. Without access to modification details, it's difficult to assess their impact on the final cost and schedule.

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: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912DS09B0014

Offers Received: 14

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Consigli Building Group Inc (UEI: 963443499)

Address: 72 SUMNER ST, MILFORD, MA, 01757

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $48,855,994

Exercised Options: $48,836,994

Current Obligation: $48,836,994

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline