Modification Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Contract No. DCAM-20-AE-0019 with DLR Group of DC, P.C., Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2025
This emergency bill would approve Modification Nos. 1 through 8 to Contract No. DCAM-20-AE-0019 with DLR Group of DC, P.C. and authorize payment for goods and services already received and to be received under those modifications. The underlying contract is for architectural and engineering services supporting the Metropolitan Police Department’s relocation to swing spaces during renovation of the Daly Building, including work at One Judiciary Square and 501 New York Avenue NW.
The bill specifically authorizes a not-to-exceed increase tied to Modification No. 8, which adds $231,680 to the contract and brings the total contract value to $2,775,355. The new scope added by the later modifications includes revisions to construction documents, meetings and submissions related to the Historic Preservation Review Board, DDOT, and DOB, fencing design, glazing and sound attenuation changes, and design of a Secure Compartmented Authorized Access Area. The legislation is framed as an emergency measure and would remain in effect for no more than 90 days.
The bill affects District procurement and contract-approval law by overriding the usual Council approval threshold in the Procurement Practices Reform Act for this contract modification package. It ratifies prior modifications and authorizes payment for work performed under them, including the cumulative value of modifications that has now exceeded $1 million, which is why Council approval is required. In practical terms, it allows DGS and MPD to continue the Daly swing space project without interruption and confirms the legality and fiscal sufficiency of the increased contract amount.
The available materials show a generally favorable and administrative tone. The Mayor urges prompt and favorable Council action, and the Department of General Services, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of the Attorney General all provided supporting certifications, including fiscal sufficiency and legal sufficiency. There is no recorded committee debate, vote history, or public opposition in the provided record, and the bill appears to be treated as a routine but time-sensitive procurement authorization needed to keep the project moving.
The main issue is not policy disagreement but procurement compliance and scope growth. The key point of contention is that the cumulative value of the contract modifications has crossed the $1 million threshold, requiring Council approval after the fact for work already underway. The added scope also reflects project changes driven by Board of Zoning Appeals proceedings and related design requirements, which may raise questions about why the work expanded and why the approval came only after multiple modifications had already been executed. No specific opposition from the contractor, agencies, or the public is identified in the record.