Department of the Army awards $28.7M contract for construction services, with 5 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,742,175 ($28.7M)

Contractor: Whitesell-Yates, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-06-30

End Date: 2012-08-06

Contract Duration: 768 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE BID

Place of Performance

Location: FORT STEWART, LIBERTY County, GEORGIA, 31314

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.7 million to WHITESELL-YATES, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: BASE BID Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract value of $28.7 million falls within a moderate spending range for construction projects. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability. 4. The duration of 768 days indicates a substantial project scope. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a focus on defense infrastructure. 6. The contract was awarded to a joint venture, potentially indicating specialized capabilities or risk sharing.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $28.7 million for construction services appears reasonable given the project scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction contracts of comparable size and complexity would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to manage cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. With 5 bids received, this suggests a healthy level of competition for this particular construction project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition and multiple bids received are beneficial for taxpayers as they likely resulted in a more competitive price than a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is centered in Georgia, as indicated by the 'SN GEORGIA' field. Workforce implications include the creation of construction jobs in the Georgia region, supporting local employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all project contingencies.
Risk of delays if the joint venture faces internal coordination issues or external challenges.
Dependence on the specific expertise of the joint venture for successful project completion.

Positive Signals

Award through full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
The project's duration indicates a significant investment in infrastructure, potentially leading to long-term benefits.
Award to a joint venture may indicate access to specialized skills and resources.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports military readiness, government operations, and public infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for similar government buildings or the total annual federal outlays for construction services.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, a joint venture, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not mandated by the contract's structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified construction services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may vary in accessibility.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Potential for contractor performance issues due to joint venture structure.
Risk of cost escalation if fixed-price contract does not account for all contingencies.
Need for robust government oversight to ensure quality and adherence to schedule.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.7 million to WHITESELL-YATES, A JOINT VENTURE. BASE BID

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WHITESELL-YATES, A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-06-30. End: 2012-08-06.

What is the track record of Whitesell-Yates, A Joint Venture, on similar federal construction contracts?

A comprehensive review of Whitesell-Yates, A Joint Venture's track record would require accessing federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. This would involve searching for past awards to this specific entity, examining the types of projects undertaken (e.g., building construction, renovation), their contract values, performance ratings (if available), and any history of contract modifications, disputes, or terminations. Understanding their past performance on similar projects, particularly those with the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, is crucial for assessing their capability to successfully execute this $28.7 million contract within the specified timeframe and budget.

How does the awarded price of $28.7 million compare to market rates for similar construction projects in Georgia?

To benchmark the $28.7 million award against market rates for similar construction projects in Georgia, one would need to consult industry cost data and construction cost indices specific to the region. Factors such as the type of building (e.g., barracks, administrative facility, warehouse), square footage, materials used, and specific site conditions significantly influence costs. Comparing the price per square foot or the total project cost against recent, comparable commercial or institutional construction projects in Georgia, adjusted for project complexity and federal contracting overhead, would provide a clearer picture of whether this award represents good value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project of this duration?

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project with a 768-day duration (approximately two years) is the potential for unforeseen cost increases that are not adequately captured in the initial bid. While the fixed price protects the government from cost overruns, the contractor bears the risk. This can lead to pressure on the contractor to cut corners on quality, use less expensive materials, or potentially seek change orders if unforeseen conditions arise that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of bidding. For the government, the risk is receiving a lower-quality product or facing delays if the contractor struggles to absorb unexpected costs.

What is the expected effectiveness of the completed construction in supporting the Department of the Army's mission?

The effectiveness of the completed construction in supporting the Department of the Army's mission is directly tied to the specific nature and quality of the facilities being built or renovated. If the project involves new barracks, it enhances troop housing and readiness. If it's an administrative building, it improves operational efficiency. The contract's classification as 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' suggests it's for general-purpose facilities. Its effectiveness will be measured by its ability to meet the intended operational requirements, provide a safe and functional environment, and contribute to the overall readiness and logistical support capabilities of the Army units it serves in Georgia.

How has federal spending on commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army trended in recent years?

Analyzing recent federal spending trends for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Army would involve examining historical contract data over the past 5-10 years. This would reveal whether spending in this category has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining relatively stable. Factors influencing these trends could include military readiness requirements, infrastructure modernization initiatives, base realignment and closure actions, and overall defense budget allocations. Understanding these trends provides context for the $28.7 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical investment or a deviation from historical patterns.

What are the implications of awarding this contract to a joint venture versus a single entity?

Awarding this contract to a joint venture (Whitesell-Yates) implies that the two or more entities have combined their resources, expertise, and capabilities to undertake this specific project. This structure is often used for large, complex projects where a single firm might lack the necessary capacity, specialized skills, or bonding limits. For the government, a joint venture can bring a broader range of expertise and potentially mitigate risks by sharing responsibility. However, it can also introduce complexities in management, communication, and accountability compared to contracting with a single, established entity.

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

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 987 HOWARD AVE, BILOXI, MS, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,742,175

Exercised Options: $28,742,175

Current Obligation: $28,742,175

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9127807D0045

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline