DoD's $69.7M Navy contract awarded to Whiting-Turner Contracting Company for construction services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $69,664,960 ($69.7M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-06-12

End Date: 2023-03-28

Contract Duration: 1,385 days

Daily Burn Rate: $50.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE PRICE P-106

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19112

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $69.7 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: BASE PRICE P-106 Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is a firm-fixed-price definitive contract, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. The base price of $69.7 million indicates a significant investment in construction services. 4. The contract duration of 1385 days spans over three years, allowing for substantial project execution. 5. The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, has a track record with federal agencies. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 7. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the Department of Defense. 8. The contract was awarded in Pennsylvania, indicating the geographic location of the project.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this construction contract is challenging without specific project details or comparable bids. The firm-fixed-price structure implies that the initial bid was deemed competitive and acceptable by the Navy. However, the total value of $69.7 million represents a substantial commitment. Further analysis would require comparing the final cost against the initial bid and assessing the scope of work delivered to determine if it represented good value for money. Without access to the bidding process details or post-award modifications, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

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 a bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. While two bidders participated, it is unclear if this represents the full extent of market interest or if other potential contractors chose not to bid. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple contractors to offer their best pricing and terms, potentially leading to cost savings for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and its personnel, who will receive the improved or new facilities. The contract delivers essential construction services for commercial and institutional buildings. The project's geographic impact is centered in Pennsylvania, where the construction work will take place. The contract supports the construction workforce in Pennsylvania, providing employment opportunities for skilled laborers and tradespeople. The successful completion of the project will enhance the Navy's operational capabilities or infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all project contingencies.
Risk of schedule delays impacting the Navy's operational readiness or facility availability.
Quality control issues could arise if not rigorously managed throughout the construction process.
Dependence on a single contractor for a large-scale project can create risks if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially protecting the government from unexpected price increases.
Awarding to an established contractor like Whiting-Turner suggests a level of confidence in their capability and past performance.
Full and open competition, even with two bidders, indicates an effort to secure competitive pricing.
The extended duration allows for thorough project execution and potentially better quality control.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a vital part of the U.S. economy, encompassing a wide range of building activities. Federal construction contracts, particularly those awarded by the Department of Defense, represent a significant portion of the market. This contract falls under commercial and institutional building construction, which includes a broad category of non-residential structures. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal construction projects, especially those for military branches, to gauge the relative cost and scope of this award.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb: false'. Furthermore, the 'ss: false' flag suggests no specific small business subcontracting goals were mandated within the contract terms. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this project would likely be through subcontracting directly with the prime contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, rather than through a government-mandated set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore indirect, relying on the prime contractor's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, which hold the contractor responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are publicly reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Construction Contracts
Navy Facilities Engineering Command Projects
Commercial Building Construction Services
Federal Government Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Quality control concerns in large-scale construction.
Limited competition may affect price discovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $69.7 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. BASE PRICE P-106

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 $69.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-06-12. End: 2023-03-28.

What is the track record of Whiting-Turner Contracting Company with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company has a significant history of working with federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. While this specific contract is for $69.7 million, the company has been involved in numerous federal projects across various branches and departments. Their experience typically spans a wide range of construction types, from institutional buildings to specialized facilities. A review of federal procurement data would reveal the volume and value of their past federal awards, as well as their performance ratings on those contracts. Generally, companies that secure large federal contracts like this one have demonstrated a capacity to meet federal requirements for quality, safety, and timely delivery, though specific performance on any given contract can vary.

How does the $69.7 million base price compare to similar Navy construction projects of comparable scope and complexity?

Comparing the $69.7 million base price requires detailed information about the specific scope of work, location, and complexity of the project, which is not fully detailed in the provided data. However, for large-scale institutional and commercial building construction, this figure is substantial but not necessarily outside the norm for major federal projects. To perform a true benchmark, one would need to identify similar Navy construction contracts awarded around the same period (2019-2023) for projects of similar size (e.g., square footage, type of facility) and geographic region. Factors like prevailing labor costs, material prices, and site conditions in Pennsylvania would also influence cost. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this price represents excellent, fair, or concerning value.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price definitive contract for a multi-year construction project?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for a multi-year construction project lies in the potential for unforeseen cost increases that are not adequately accounted for in the initial bid. While the FFP structure shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, significant issues like unexpected site conditions, major material price escalations beyond market norms, or extensive design changes initiated by the government could lead to contractor claims or disputes. For the government, the risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or safety to maintain profitability if costs rise unexpectedly, or that the initial price, while fixed, was inflated due to contractor risk aversion. Delays can also be a risk, impacting the government's ability to utilize the facility.

What does the participation of only two bidders in a full and open competition imply about the market for this type of construction service?

The participation of only two bidders in a full and open competition for this $69.7 million Navy construction contract could imply several things about the market. It might suggest that the market for this specific type of construction service, in this particular geographic area, is relatively concentrated, with only a few firms possessing the necessary expertise, bonding capacity, and security clearances to undertake such a large federal project. Alternatively, it could indicate that the project's requirements were highly specialized, or that the solicitation process itself may have deterred other potential bidders due to complexity, tight timelines, or perceived risks. While two bidders still represent competition, a lower number than anticipated could potentially lead to less aggressive pricing compared to a scenario with numerous bids.

How does the contract's duration of 1385 days (approximately 3.8 years) impact project management and potential for cost escalation?

A contract duration of 1385 days for a construction project of this magnitude is substantial and has several implications. From a project management perspective, it allows for a more phased approach, detailed execution, and potentially better quality control, reducing the likelihood of rushed work. However, a longer duration also increases the exposure to market fluctuations in material costs and labor rates over time. For a firm-fixed-price contract, the contractor bears the brunt of these fluctuations. This extended timeline necessitates robust contract administration to monitor progress, manage changes, and ensure the contractor maintains focus and efficiency throughout the project lifecycle. It also means the government's capital is tied up for a longer period before the facility becomes operational.

What are the potential implications for small businesses given the absence of specific subcontracting goals or set-asides in this contract?

The absence of specific small business subcontracting goals or set-asides in this $69.7 million contract means that small businesses are not guaranteed a direct role or a minimum percentage of the contract value. Their involvement would depend entirely on the prime contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, choosing to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses. While large federal contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized services or materials, there is no government mandate in this instance. This could limit the direct economic benefit to the small business sector from this specific contract, compared to contracts with explicit subcontracting requirements designed to foster small business participation.

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: N4008519R9057

Offers Received: 2

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: $73,153,708

Exercised Options: $69,664,960

Current Obligation: $69,664,960

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline