Garco Construction awarded $19.7M design/build contract for Yakima, WA facility by Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,730,069 ($19.7M)

Contractor: Garco Construction, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-30

End Date: 2011-02-28

Contract Duration: 881 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN/BUILD YAKIMA, WA

Place of Performance

Location: AUBURN, KING County, WASHINGTON, 98001

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.7 million to GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. for work described as: DESIGN/BUILD YAKIMA, WA Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract value of $19.7 million falls within a moderate spending range for construction projects of this nature. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The project duration of 881 days indicates a significant undertaking requiring substantial contractor resources. 5. The project is located in Washington state, potentially impacting local construction workforce and material sourcing. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary award was not specifically targeted for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $19.7 million for a design/build facility in Yakima, WA, appears reasonable given the project scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction projects of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure generally leads to predictable costs for the government, assuming no significant change orders.

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 a bid. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific project. A higher number of bidders typically correlates with more competitive pricing, but the specific nature of design/build projects can sometimes limit the pool of qualified proposers.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation. The presence of at least two bidders suggests that taxpayer funds were likely used efficiently, as the government had options to choose from.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, which will receive a new or improved facility. The contract delivers design and construction services for a facility in Yakima, Washington. The geographic impact is concentrated in Yakima, Washington, potentially creating local jobs and economic activity. The project will likely involve a significant construction workforce, including skilled trades, engineers, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or design complexities arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Ensuring timely completion within the 881-day timeframe is critical to avoid project delays and associated costs.
Quality control and adherence to design specifications will be paramount for the long-term functionality of the facility.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty for the government.
Awarding through full and open competition suggests a thorough vetting of proposals and a competitive pricing environment.
The design/build approach can streamline the project delivery process by integrating design and construction phases.

Sector Analysis

The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector is a vital part of the U.S. economy, encompassing a wide range of projects from office buildings to specialized government facilities. Federal spending in this sector, particularly for defense-related infrastructure, is substantial. This contract for a design/build facility fits within the broader context of military base improvements and operational readiness initiatives. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other DoD construction contracts for similar facility types and sizes.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall proposal through full and open competition. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor, Garco Construction, Inc., voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the project's contract administration office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified facility within the agreed-upon price and timeframe. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
General Services Administration Public Buildings Service
Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for quality issues if contractor prioritizes cost savings over standards.
Risk of schedule delays impacting facility readiness.
Limited competition may reduce price negotiation leverage.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.7 million to GARCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.. DESIGN/BUILD YAKIMA, WA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GARCO CONSTRUCTION, 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 $19.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-30. End: 2011-02-28.

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

Garco Construction, Inc. has a history of performing federal contracts, including those with the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any past performance issues, and the types of projects they have successfully completed for the government would provide insight into their reliability and capability. Specific data on their contract history, including award values, completion timeliness, and any disputes or claims, would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment. A review of their financial stability and bonding capacity would also be relevant to gauge their ability to undertake a project of this magnitude.

How does the $19.7 million award compare to similar design/build construction projects for the Department of the Army?

To benchmark the $19.7 million award, one would need to compare it against similar design/build construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Army or other federal agencies. Key comparison factors include the facility's square footage, intended use (e.g., barracks, administrative, maintenance), geographic location (which influences labor and material costs), and the complexity of the design and construction requirements. Analyzing the cost per square foot or cost per functional unit for comparable projects would reveal whether this award represents a favorable price for the government. Without specific comparable project data, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price design/build contract for the Department of the Army?

The primary risks for the Department of the Army in a firm-fixed-price design/build contract revolve around ensuring the contractor delivers the required facility within budget and on schedule, meeting all performance specifications. While the firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, there's a risk of the contractor cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability, especially if unforeseen issues arise during construction. Another risk is inadequate design, which could lead to costly changes or operational inefficiencies later. The government also bears the risk of scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined and managed. The limited competition (two bidders) could also pose a risk if the chosen contractor underperforms, as re-competing could be time-consuming and costly.

What is the historical spending pattern for design/build construction projects by the Department of the Army in Washington state?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for design/build construction projects by the Department of the Army in Washington state would involve examining contract award databases over several fiscal years. This would reveal the typical award values, the frequency of such contracts, and the primary contracting firms involved. Understanding these patterns can help identify trends in construction costs, project types, and the level of competition typically seen in the region. It can also highlight any significant fluctuations in spending that might be related to specific military construction initiatives or broader economic conditions affecting the construction industry in Washington.

What are the potential implications of the 881-day duration on project oversight and resource allocation?

The 881-day duration (approximately 2.4 years) for this design/build project necessitates sustained oversight and resource allocation from the Department of the Army. Project managers will need to monitor progress consistently, manage stakeholder expectations, and ensure adherence to milestones throughout the extended period. This duration also implies a significant commitment of government personnel for contract administration, quality assurance, and site inspections. For the contractor, the long duration requires careful planning for workforce management, material procurement, and financial stability. Potential risks associated with such a long timeline include changes in regulations, economic fluctuations, and the need for adaptive management to address unforeseen challenges.

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: W912QR08R0070

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4114 E BROADWAY AVE, SPOKANE, WA, 05

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,730,069

Exercised Options: $19,730,069

Current Obligation: $19,730,069

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline