Navy Awards $11.5M Construction Contract for Miscellaneous Buildings at Keesler AFB

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,547,096 ($11.5M)

Contractor: Whitesell-Yates, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-22

End Date: 2008-04-25

Contract Duration: 946 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 200512!051363!1700!N62467!NAVY FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMM!N6246705C0202 !A!N! !N! ! !20050922!20070131!061220930!061220930!061220930!N!WHITESELL GREEN YATES & SONS !810 HERCULES !BILOXI !MS!39534!37200!047!28!KEESLER AFB !HARRISON !MISS !+000009100000!N!N!000009100000!Y199!OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !ZHK !* !236220!E! !1! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !N!Z!D!U!J!1!001!N!5A!D!N!A! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !Z!Z!A!A!000!A!B!Y! !N! !Y!5700!FC3010!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: BILOXI, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39534

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.5 million to WHITESELL-YATES, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: 200512!051363!1700!N62467!NAVY FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMM!N6246705C0202 !A!N! !N! ! !20050922!20070131!061220930!061220930!061220930!N!WHITESELL GREEN YATES & SONS !810 HERCULES !BILOXI !MS!39534!37200!047!28!KEESLER AFB !HARR… Key points: 1. The contract was awarded for miscellaneous building construction, a common need for military installations. 2. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate but potentially limited bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the final price could exceed initial estimates. 4. The sector is construction, a significant area of government spending with varying market dynamics.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $11.5 million for construction services appears within a reasonable range for a definitive contract of this nature. However, without specific details on the scope of work, a precise comparison to similar contracts is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This suggests that while the competition was open, certain sources were intentionally excluded, which could impact the breadth of price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of a definitive contract with a fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty for taxpayers. However, the final cost and value depend on the execution and any potential change orders.

Public Impact

Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process, even with source exclusions, to secure construction services. The project supports infrastructure development at a military installation, indirectly contributing to operational readiness. Local economies may see a boost through employment and subcontracting opportunities related to the construction project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise.
Limited competition due to source exclusion could lead to suboptimal pricing.
Contract duration of over 2 years may introduce risks related to material price fluctuations.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides cost control.
Awarded to a joint venture, potentially bringing diverse expertise.
Infrastructure improvement at a key military facility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically for miscellaneous building construction. Government spending in this sector is substantial, driven by infrastructure needs, facility maintenance, and new construction projects at federal sites.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was awarded by the Department of Defense, which has established oversight mechanisms for federal contracts. However, the effectiveness of oversight depends on specific agency practices and contract management.

Related Government Programs

Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to broad scope definition.
Limited competition may have impacted price.
Long contract duration increases risk of market volatility affecting costs.
Lack of detail on specific building types hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.5 million to WHITESELL-YATES, A JOINT VENTURE. 200512!051363!1700!N62467!NAVY FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMM!N6246705C0202 !A!N! !N! ! !20050922!20070131!061220930!061220930!061220930!N!WHITESELL GREEN YATES & SONS !810 HERCULES !BILOXI !MS!39534!37200!047!28!KEESLER AFB !HARRISON !MISS !+000009100000!N!N!000009100000!Y199!OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !ZHK !* !236220!E! !1! ! ! ! ! !202

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 Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-22. End: 2008-04-25.

What specific types of 'miscellaneous buildings' were constructed, and how did their complexity influence the final cost?

The contract specifies 'OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS,' which is a broad category. The complexity of these buildings, ranging from simple storage units to more specialized structures, would significantly impact the cost. Without detailed specifications, it's challenging to assess if the $11.5 million was a fair price for the actual work performed.

What were the criteria for excluding certain sources in the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' process, and did this exclusion limit potential cost savings?

The criteria for excluding sources are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, exclusions might be based on past performance, technical capabilities, or specific security requirements. However, excluding potential bidders, even with justification, inherently limits the competitive landscape and could prevent the government from securing the most cost-effective solution available.

How effectively did the fixed-price contract type manage risks associated with the 946-day contract duration, considering potential market volatility?

A fixed-price contract aims to shift cost risk to the contractor. However, with a duration of 946 days (over 2.5 years), the contractor assumes significant risk for material price increases and labor cost fluctuations. The government's risk is primarily related to potential contractor claims for unforeseen conditions or scope changes, which could drive up the final cost beyond the initial award amount.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ALTERNATIVE SOURCES

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 810 HERCULES, BILOXI, MS, 39534

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,509,702

Exercised Options: $1,509,702

Current Obligation: $11,547,096

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline