State Department's $15.9M building construction contract awarded to HITT Contracting Inc. for over 2,400 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,869,900 ($15.9M)

Contractor: Hitt Contracting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2003-09-29

End Date: 2010-07-31

Contract Duration: 2,497 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $15.9 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC. for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in federal infrastructure, focusing on the construction of essential office facilities. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open bidding process, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. The extended duration of the contract (nearly 7 years) warrants scrutiny for potential scope creep or evolving needs. 4. Performance context is crucial, as the successful completion of such projects directly impacts operational capabilities. 5. This contract falls within the broader construction sector, a vital component of government service delivery and economic activity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this construction contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of work, location, and quality of materials. However, the total award amount of approximately $15.9 million for a multi-year project suggests a substantial investment. Comparing it to similar federal building construction projects would require detailed cost breakdowns and project specifications. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government, but the final value is dependent on the contractor's efficiency and management of resources over the contract's extended period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach is generally favored for maximizing competition and achieving the best value for the government. The number of bids received (5) suggests a moderate level of interest, which is sufficient to foster price discovery but may not represent the highest possible level of competition. The agency's decision to use full and open competition implies confidence in the market's ability to provide qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process typically leads to more competitive pricing, potentially saving taxpayer dollars compared to less competitive award methods. It ensures that the government explores a wider range of options and selects the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of State personnel who will utilize the newly constructed office facilities, enabling improved operational efficiency. The services delivered include the physical construction of office buildings, a fundamental requirement for government operations. The geographic impact is localized to the site of construction, contributing to local economic activity through job creation and material sourcing. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, architects, and project managers involved in the building process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Extended contract duration (2497 days) could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Potential for scope creep over the long performance period, increasing the overall cost beyond initial estimates.
Reliance on a single contractor for a lengthy construction project may limit flexibility in adapting to changing requirements.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The contractor, HITT Contracting, Inc., has a track record in large-scale construction projects.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant part of the U.S. economy, encompassing the building of commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities. Federal spending in this sector supports infrastructure development and modernization. This contract for office building construction fits within the broader category of commercial building construction, a market segment characterized by varying levels of competition depending on project size, complexity, and location. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot for similar government or private sector office building projects.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. The primary contractor, HITT Contracting, Inc., is a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without specific subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large federal construction projects often involve a tiered subcontracting structure where small businesses may participate.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of State's contracting officers and project managers, ensuring adherence to the contract terms, specifications, and schedule. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price structure, which incentivizes the contractor to manage costs effectively. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Department of State Facilities Management
Government Office Space Acquisition
Public Works Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration may indicate potential for schedule slippage or scope creep.
Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders detailed assessment.
Need for comparison against similar projects to fully evaluate value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $15.9 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC.. CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HITT CONTRACTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-09-29. End: 2010-07-31.

What was the specific scope of work for the office building construction, and how did it evolve over the contract period?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS' with a start date of 2003-09-29 and an end date of 2010-07-31, spanning approximately 2,497 days. Without access to the detailed contract statement of work (SOW) and any subsequent modifications, it is impossible to ascertain the precise scope of construction (e.g., new build, renovation, specific facilities included) or how it may have evolved. Government construction contracts, especially those with long durations, often undergo modifications to address unforeseen site conditions, changes in requirements, or adjustments in project scope. Analyzing these modifications would be crucial to understanding the final delivered product and any deviations from the original plan.

How does the awarded amount of $15.9 million compare to the estimated cost or market rates for similar office building construction projects of comparable size and complexity?

Directly comparing the $15.9 million award to market rates is difficult without detailed project specifications such as square footage, location, building class (e.g., A, B, C), specific amenities, and the prevailing economic conditions at the time of award. However, the contract was awarded under full and open competition with 5 bidders, suggesting a competitive market influenced the final price. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable federal or private sector office building projects initiated around 2003-2004 in similar geographic regions and analyze their cost per square foot. Industry cost estimating guides and historical data from similar government projects would be essential for a robust comparison.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this construction contract, and how did HITT Contracting, Inc. perform against them?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance evaluation reports for this contract. Typically, construction contracts include metrics related to schedule adherence, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, budget management, and responsiveness to site conditions or design changes. Performance evaluations are usually documented in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar internal agency systems. Without access to these records, it's impossible to definitively assess HITT Contracting, Inc.'s performance beyond the fact that the contract was completed by its end date. A review of CPARS data, if available, would provide insights into their past performance.

What is the historical spending pattern of the Department of State on office building construction, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?

Analyzing the historical spending pattern of the Department of State on office building construction requires access to historical procurement data beyond this single contract. This would involve examining contract awards for similar construction services over several fiscal years to identify trends in spending levels, types of projects, and primary contractors. This $15.9 million contract, awarded in 2003 for a project concluding in 2010, represents a significant, multi-year investment. Its place within the broader pattern would depend on whether it was an isolated large project or part of a sustained program of facility modernization or expansion. Understanding the agency's strategic facility needs and budget allocations would provide context.

Were there any significant risks identified during the bidding or performance phases of this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided summary data does not explicitly list identified risks or mitigation strategies for this contract. However, common risks in large-scale construction projects include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), design deficiencies, labor shortages, material price volatility, and weather delays. The firm-fixed-price contract structure places the primary responsibility for managing many of these cost-related risks on the contractor. The Department of State would have likely conducted due diligence during the source selection process to assess bidder capabilities and financial stability. Post-award, risk mitigation would involve active project management, regular site inspections, and potentially contingency planning for schedule or scope adjustments.

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

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2704 DORR AVE, FAIRFAX, VA, 11

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,869,900

Exercised Options: $15,869,900

Current Obligation: $15,869,900

Timeline