DoD's $21.7M energy efficiency contract awarded to Whiting-Turner Contracting Company for MCAS

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,766,454 ($21.8M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-09-25

End Date: 2014-11-15

Contract Duration: 781 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS AT MCAS

Place of Performance

Location: CAMP LEJEUNE, ONSLOW County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28547, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.8 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS AT MCAS Key points: 1. The contract focused on energy efficiency improvements, aligning with federal sustainability goals. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract was substantial, indicating a complex and long-term project. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 5. The project was located in North Carolina, impacting local construction and skilled labor markets. 6. The contract's value is moderate within the context of large-scale federal construction projects.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $21.7 million for energy efficiency improvements at MCAS appears reasonable for a project of this scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction and energy retrofitting projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure is generally favorable for controlling costs, assuming the initial scope was well-defined. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar energy efficiency measures, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging, but the competitive award process offers some assurance.

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. The presence of three bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While three bidders are better than a sole-source award, a higher number of bids could potentially lead to more aggressive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions. The competition level here likely provided a reasonable basis for price discovery and contractor selection.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a more competitive environment, which can drive down prices and improve the quality of services received. This approach ensures that the government explores a broader market, potentially leading to better value.

Public Impact

Military personnel and operations at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) benefit from improved energy efficiency and potentially reduced utility costs. The project delivered infrastructure upgrades focused on sustainability and operational resilience. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, supporting the local economy through construction activities. The contract likely supported jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades and project management in the North Carolina region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in long-duration construction projects, which could impact final costs if not managed effectively.
Reliance on a single prime contractor for a large project introduces risk if performance issues arise.
Ensuring adherence to energy efficiency standards and long-term performance verification can be challenging.
The fixed-price nature might incentivize cost-cutting that could compromise quality if oversight is insufficient.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Focus on energy efficiency aligns with federal sustainability mandates and long-term cost savings.
The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a well-established firm with experience in large-scale projects.
The project's completion within the specified timeframe (though duration is long) suggests successful project execution.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on energy efficiency retrofits and improvements. This sector is a significant part of the broader construction industry, encompassing a wide range of projects from new builds to renovations. Federal spending in this area is often driven by mandates for sustainability, operational cost reduction, and infrastructure modernization. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or cost per unit of energy saved for similar government or private sector projects.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. The prime contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a large entity. The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily be through subcontracting, if the prime contractor chooses to engage them. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting opportunities were pursued.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified outcomes within the agreed price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Energy Programs
Federal Building and Infrastructure Modernization
Military Base Operations and Maintenance
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost increases if project scope expands beyond initial estimates.
Risk associated with long project durations and potential for unforeseen site conditions.
Ensuring long-term energy savings performance requires robust monitoring and verification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.8 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS AT MCAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-25. End: 2014-11-15.

What was the specific scope of 'energy efficiency improvements' undertaken at MCAS under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific energy efficiency improvements. However, typical projects of this nature within federal facilities often include upgrades to HVAC systems, lighting retrofits (e.g., LED conversions), building envelope improvements (insulation, window replacements), installation of energy-efficient windows and doors, and potentially renewable energy integration like solar panels. The goal is usually to reduce overall energy consumption, lower utility costs, and decrease the facility's carbon footprint. A more detailed scope would be found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW).

How does the $21.7 million contract value compare to other energy efficiency projects at military installations?

The $21.7 million value positions this contract as a significant, but not exceptionally large, investment in facility upgrades. Large-scale energy retrofits at military bases can range from a few million dollars for targeted improvements to tens or even hundreds of millions for comprehensive overhauls of multiple buildings or entire installations. Factors influencing cost include the size and age of facilities, the specific technologies implemented, and the scope of work (e.g., just lighting vs. full HVAC and building envelope). This contract appears to be in the mid-to-upper range for a single installation's focused energy efficiency initiative.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this energy efficiency contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for energy efficiency projects, KPIs would focus on measurable reductions in energy consumption (e.g., kilowatt-hours saved), cost savings achieved in utility bills, and potentially environmental metrics like reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Performance might also be assessed based on adherence to project timelines, budget, and quality standards for the installed systems. The contract's final acceptance and any post-occupancy evaluations would reflect whether these KPIs were met.

What is Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's track record with similar federal energy efficiency contracts?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a large, established general contractor with extensive experience in various construction sectors, including federal projects and potentially energy-related infrastructure. While this specific data point doesn't detail their history with energy efficiency contracts, their general profile suggests they possess the capacity and expertise for such work. A deeper dive into their contract history via databases like FPDS or SAM.gov would reveal the number and scale of similar projects they have completed for the government, providing a clearer picture of their specific track record in energy efficiency.

Were there any significant cost overruns or delays associated with this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded on September 25, 2012, and ended on November 15, 2014, with a duration of 781 days. This suggests the project was completed within its planned timeframe, although the exact 'planned' duration isn't specified. There is no explicit mention of cost overruns in the summary data. However, large construction projects, especially those spanning nearly two years, can sometimes experience adjustments to scope or schedule. Without access to detailed contract performance reports or modification history, it's difficult to definitively rule out minor overruns or delays that may have been managed through contract modifications.

How does the competition level (3 bidders) impact the perceived value for taxpayers on this contract?

Having three bidders for this contract suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders generally lead to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers, three offers still indicate that multiple companies were interested and capable of performing the work. This level of competition is often sufficient to prevent excessively high pricing compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. Taxpayers benefit from this competition by receiving a price that is likely closer to market rates, rather than a price determined by a single provider.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N4008510R5306

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 E JOPPA RD, BALTIMORE, MD, 21286

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,766,454

Exercised Options: $21,766,454

Current Obligation: $21,766,454

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4008510D5330

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline