DoD's $203M Wallace Creek Phase II contract awarded to Whiting-Turner, a large fixed-price construction project

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $203,256,055 ($203.3M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-02-25

End Date: 2014-03-28

Contract Duration: 1,492 days

Daily Burn Rate: $136.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 16

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE BID FOR WALLACE CREEK PHASE II

Place of Performance

Location: CAMP LEJEUNE, ONSLOW County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28547

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $203.3 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: BASE BID FOR WALLACE CREEK PHASE II Key points: 1. The contract's fixed-price nature shifts risk to the contractor, potentially leading to cost savings if managed efficiently. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, likely yielding competitive pricing. 3. The project's duration of nearly 1500 days indicates a complex undertaking with potential for schedule-related risks. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Navy, this project aligns with broader military infrastructure development goals. 5. The absence of small business set-asides means opportunities for smaller firms may be limited to subcontracting. 6. The contract's scale suggests significant implications for the local construction workforce and material suppliers in North Carolina.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The base bid of $203.26 million for the Wallace Creek Phase II project appears substantial, reflecting the scale of the construction. Without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale military construction projects, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price contract type is generally favorable for the government, as it caps the contractor's potential earnings and incentivizes cost control. The number of bids received (16) suggests a healthy level of interest, which can contribute to competitive pricing.

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 receipt of 16 bids suggests a competitive environment, which is generally conducive to achieving fair market prices and innovative solutions. A higher number of bidders typically correlates with better price discovery and a reduced likelihood of contractor collusion.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this project is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down the final award price compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. This process helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and its personnel, who will gain improved facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure improvements, likely including barracks, training facilities, or support buildings. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, supporting local economic activity through construction jobs and material procurement. The construction activities will likely create numerous jobs for skilled tradespeople, engineers, and project managers in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occur, despite the fixed-price structure.
Schedule delays are a risk given the project's long duration and complexity, potentially impacting operational readiness.
Quality control issues could arise in such a large-scale construction project, requiring diligent oversight.
Contractor performance risk, though mitigated by competition, still exists for a project of this magnitude.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition with 16 bidders suggests a strong market response and likely competitive pricing.
The contractor, Whiting-Turner, is a large, established firm with significant experience in large-scale construction.
The project's clear definition (Phase II) implies a structured approach building upon prior work.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, with substantial annual spending on infrastructure projects globally. Benchmarks for similar large-scale military construction projects would typically involve comparing cost per square foot, unit costs for specific building types (e.g., barracks), and overall project timelines against industry standards and historical government contracts.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation (set-aside or subcontracting) was not a primary consideration, as 'sb' is false. This suggests the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and there's no explicit indication of mandated subcontracting goals. While large prime contractors like Whiting-Turner often engage small businesses as subcontractors, the absence of a formal set-aside means opportunities may be less structured and dependent on the prime's procurement strategy. This could limit direct contracting opportunities for small businesses in this specific project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this project would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions, potentially involving resident engineers and quality assurance representatives on-site. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, with penalties for delays or non-performance. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, although detailed project-specific oversight activities are often internal.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction (MILCON) Program
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Large-Scale Commercial Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation due to long project duration.
Risk of schedule delays impacting military readiness.
Quality control challenges in large-scale construction.
Contractor performance risk on complex projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $203.3 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. BASE BID FOR WALLACE CREEK PHASE II

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 $203.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-02-25. End: 2014-03-28.

What is Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's track record with large federal construction projects, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a well-established, large-scale construction firm with extensive experience in federal projects. They have a history of successfully completing complex projects for various government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy. Their portfolio often includes large institutional, commercial, and infrastructure developments. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are not always publicly detailed, their consistent ability to win and execute large federal contracts suggests a strong track record. Reviewing past performance databases and project completion records would provide a more granular understanding of their historical success rates, on-time delivery, and budget adherence on similar DoD projects.

How does the $203 million award price compare to similar Department of the Navy construction projects of comparable size and scope?

Directly comparing the $203.26 million award price requires access to a database of similar Department of the Navy construction projects, including their scope, location, and award values. However, for large-scale institutional or barracks construction, this figure represents a significant investment. Factors influencing cost include building type, square footage, specific facility requirements (e.g., security, technology integration), and prevailing market conditions (labor and material costs) at the time of award (2010). Benchmarking would involve calculating cost per square foot or cost per bed/occupant and comparing it against other projects of similar complexity awarded around the same period. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed to cap costs, but the initial bid reflects the contractor's assessment of project expenses.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project of this duration (1492 days)?

For a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, the primary risk for the government is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if costs escalate unexpectedly. However, the main risk shifts to the contractor, who bears the burden of cost overruns. For a project spanning nearly four years, significant risks include unforeseen site conditions, substantial fluctuations in material prices (e.g., steel, concrete), labor availability issues, and potential design changes or scope creep initiated by the government. If the contractor miscalculates these risks during bidding, they could face substantial losses. Conversely, if their estimates are overly conservative, the FFP structure might lead to a higher initial price than necessary.

How effective is 'full and open competition' in ensuring value for money for large federal construction contracts like Wallace Creek Phase II?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money in federal contracting. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that 16 bids were received for the Wallace Creek Phase II project indicates a robust level of competition, which strongly suggests that the government secured a competitive price. This process minimizes the risk of paying inflated prices associated with sole-source or limited competition awards. The government benefits from a wider range of potential solutions and a greater likelihood that the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer represents good value.

What are the potential implications of the contract's 'NC' (North Carolina) location on workforce and material sourcing?

The 'NC' designation indicates the project is located in North Carolina. This implies that the primary workforce will likely be drawn from the local and regional labor market. A project of this scale (over $200 million) would create significant employment opportunities for skilled trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters), general laborers, project managers, and support staff in the vicinity. Sourcing of construction materials (e.g., lumber, concrete, aggregates) would also likely prioritize local and regional suppliers to minimize transportation costs and lead times, thereby stimulating the state's economy. However, depending on specialized material or equipment needs, sourcing may extend beyond the state.

Given the contract type (Definitive Contract) and award value, what level of oversight is typically expected?

A Definitive Contract, especially one with a base bid of over $200 million, typically involves substantial government oversight. This oversight is crucial for ensuring contract compliance, quality control, and adherence to schedule. The Department of the Navy would assign contracting officers, contract specialists, and technical representatives (e.g., engineers, construction representatives) to monitor the contractor's performance. On-site presence through resident engineers or quality assurance personnel is common to inspect work, verify materials, and manage progress. The firm fixed-price nature necessitates oversight focused on verifying that the completed work meets all specifications and quality standards, rather than day-to-day cost management, although change order management remains critical.

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: N4008509R3216

Offers Received: 16

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: $203,256,055

Exercised Options: $203,256,055

Current Obligation: $203,256,055

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline