DoD's $10.7M Industrial Building Construction contract awarded to Wight & Company shows strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,717,318 ($10.7M)

Contractor: Wight & Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-29

End Date: 2008-11-13

Contract Duration: 411 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BUILDING 631 TAS::97 0100::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: GREAT LAKES, LAKE County, ILLINOIS, 60088

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.7 million to WIGHT & COMPANY for work described as: BUILDING 631 TAS::97 0100::TAS Key points: 1. The contract value of $10.7 million for industrial building construction appears reasonable given the scope. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which is a positive indicator for cost control. 4. The relatively short performance period of 411 days indicates a focused project execution. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the Department of Defense. 6. The project is located in Illinois, providing a regional economic impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $10.7 million for industrial building construction is within a typical range for projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fixed-price nature of the award suggests that the contractor has assumed the cost risk, which is generally favorable for the government.

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. With 11 bids received, the level of competition was robust. This suggests that the market has sufficient capacity and interest in undertaking such projects for the Department of the Navy, which typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: The high number of bidders in this full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down the final contract price through competitive pressure and ensured the government received a fair market price for the construction services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, which receives upgraded or new industrial building facilities. The services delivered include the construction of industrial buildings, essential for military operations and logistics. The geographic impact is localized to Illinois, where the construction project is situated. The project likely created temporary employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the Illinois region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
Delays in construction schedule could impact operational readiness for the Navy.
Quality control during construction needs diligent oversight to ensure durability and compliance with specifications.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
Robust competition suggests a well-defined scope and market readiness.
Awarded by a major defense agency (DoD), implying adherence to stringent procurement standards.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically industrial building construction. The market for such services is substantial, driven by both private sector development and significant government investment in infrastructure and facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal, state, and local government contracts for similar industrial or military facility construction projects to gauge cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering departments, ensuring compliance with the contract terms, specifications, and schedule. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract, where the contractor is responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project-level oversight details may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Industrial Facility Construction Services
Federal Building and Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays impacting military readiness.
Risk of unforeseen site conditions affecting cost and timeline.
Need for rigorous quality assurance to ensure structural integrity and compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.7 million to WIGHT & COMPANY. BUILDING 631 TAS::97 0100::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WIGHT & COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-29. End: 2008-11-13.

What is the track record of Wight & Company with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess Wight & Company's track record with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. This would involve examining past contract awards, performance evaluations (if available), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Understanding their experience with similar-sized projects and their performance on fixed-price contracts would provide valuable context for evaluating their capability and reliability on this specific industrial building construction project.

How does the $10.7 million contract value compare to similar industrial building construction projects undertaken by the Department of the Navy?

To benchmark the value, one would need to compare this $10.7 million contract against other Department of the Navy (or DoD) contracts for industrial building construction of similar size, scope, and complexity, awarded within a comparable timeframe. Factors such as square footage, specific industrial requirements (e.g., specialized ventilation, heavy-duty flooring, hazardous material handling capabilities), and geographic location (which influences labor and material costs) would need to be considered. Without access to a detailed database of comparable projects and their associated costs, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the amount appears within a reasonable range for a significant construction undertaking.

What are the primary risks associated with this fixed-price industrial building construction contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risks for the government in a fixed-price contract are typically related to potential contractor underperformance, schedule delays, or unforeseen issues that could lead to claims for additional costs, despite the fixed price. For this industrial building construction project, risks could include subsurface conditions, weather delays, material availability, or labor shortages. Mitigation strategies employed by the government would include thorough pre-award due diligence on the contractor's capabilities, detailed contract specifications, clear performance milestones, robust inspection and quality assurance processes, and potentially performance bonds. The fixed-price nature itself mitigates the risk of cost escalation for the government, provided the scope is well-defined.

How effective is 'full and open competition' in ensuring competitive pricing for large-scale construction projects like this one?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring competitive pricing for large-scale construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving multiple competitive proposals. This intense competition drives down prices as contractors vie for the award. The fact that 11 bids were received for this Department of the Navy contract strongly suggests that the full and open competition strategy was successful in attracting significant market interest and fostering a competitive environment, which is beneficial for taxpayer value.

What is the historical spending pattern for industrial building construction by the Department of the Navy, and how does this contract fit within it?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for industrial building construction by the Department of the Navy would involve examining aggregate data over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract values, types of construction, geographic distribution, and the number of contracts awarded annually. This specific $10.7 million contract represents a single project award. To understand its place within the broader pattern, one would need to compare its value and scope against the average contract size and frequency of such awards in recent years. If the Navy consistently awards similar contracts, this project fits a recurring need; if it's an outlier, it might represent a specific infrastructure initiative or upgrade.

Are there any specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract that indicate its success?

The provided data does not detail specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, construction contracts include metrics related to schedule adherence (e.g., completion by the November 13, 2008 deadline), quality of workmanship (compliance with specifications and building codes), safety record (incident rates), and adherence to budget (within the $10.7 million fixed price). The success of the contract would be evaluated against these criteria, often documented in post-award performance reviews or contract close-out reports. The absence of explicit KPIs in the summary data means their effectiveness cannot be directly assessed here.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N4008306R4507

Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2500 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD, DARIEN, IL, 60561

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,717,318

Exercised Options: $10,717,318

Current Obligation: $10,717,318

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4008306D4019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline