Watterson Construction awarded $18.1M for barracks construction, reflecting typical costs for large-scale military building projects

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,078,315 ($18.1M)

Contractor: Watterson Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-02-28

End Date: 2010-07-01

Contract Duration: 854 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCT BARRACKS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WAINWRIGHT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR County, ALASKA, 99703

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.1 million to WATTERSON CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: CONSTRUCT BARRACKS Key points: 1. The contract value aligns with industry benchmarks for similar construction projects. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type transfers risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of 854 days indicates a significant construction undertaking. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major defense spender. 6. Geographic location in Alaska may influence construction costs due to logistical challenges.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $18.1 million for constructing barracks appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale construction projects. While specific per-unit cost data is not provided, the overall award amount is consistent with the scope of building military housing. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor is responsible for managing costs within the agreed-upon budget, which is a positive indicator for value.

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 presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and ensures a fair selection process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the assurance that the contract was awarded through a process designed to solicit the best possible price and quality from a wide range of potential contractors.

Public Impact

Military personnel stationed in Alaska will benefit from improved housing facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure for troop readiness and quality of life. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, supporting military operations in the region. The construction project likely created temporary jobs for skilled trades and laborers in Alaska.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise in Alaska's challenging environment.
Logistical complexities in Alaska could lead to delays and increased material costs.
Limited competition (two bidders) might have reduced the downward pressure on pricing.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition provides a baseline for fair pricing.
Award to an established construction company suggests experience in executing large projects.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector is a significant area of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure projects like military barracks. This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sub-sector. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, troop housing requirements, and base improvements. Benchmarks for similar projects vary widely based on location, size, and complexity, but projects in the multi-million dollar range are common for military barracks.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. The award went to Watterson Construction Co., which is likely a large business. This means the direct economic impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract is minimal, though larger prime contractors may engage small businesses in their supply chain for materials or specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

The Department of the Army, under the Department of Defense, typically has robust oversight mechanisms for construction contracts. This includes contract administration by the awarding agency (DCA in this case) and potential review by the Inspector General. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver within budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Program
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation due to Alaska's unique logistical and environmental challenges.
Limited competition may have impacted final pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can be subject to change orders if scope significantly deviates.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.1 million to WATTERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. CONSTRUCT BARRACKS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WATTERSON CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-28. End: 2010-07-01.

What is the track record of Watterson Construction Co. on similar federal contracts?

Watterson Construction Co. has a history of performing construction services for various government agencies. While specific details on past barracks construction projects are not immediately available from this data snippet, their involvement in federal contracts suggests experience with government procurement processes and requirements. Further analysis would involve reviewing their past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported issues or successes on similar projects to assess their reliability and capability for executing large-scale military construction.

How does the cost per square foot for these barracks compare to industry averages?

The provided data does not include the square footage of the barracks or a detailed cost breakdown, making a direct per-square-foot cost comparison impossible. However, the total contract value of $18.1 million for constructing barracks can be considered a benchmark. To perform a true comparison, one would need to obtain the total square footage built and divide it by the contract value. This figure could then be benchmarked against average construction costs per square foot for similar institutional or military buildings in Alaska, considering factors like material costs, labor rates, and logistical challenges specific to the region.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific construction project in Alaska?

The primary risks associated with this construction project in Alaska include environmental factors such as extreme weather conditions (cold temperatures, snow, permafrost), which can significantly impact construction timelines and costs. Logistical challenges related to transporting materials and equipment to remote locations in Alaska are also a major risk, potentially leading to delays and increased expenses. Furthermore, the availability and cost of skilled labor in Alaska could pose a risk. The firm-fixed-price contract structure transfers some of these risks to the contractor, but significant unforeseen issues could still lead to claims or project difficulties.

How effective has the Department of the Army been in managing similar large-scale construction contracts?

The Department of the Army, as a major component of the Department of Defense, has extensive experience managing large-scale construction contracts. Historically, their effectiveness can be assessed through various metrics, including project completion rates, adherence to budget, and the quality of delivered facilities. While specific performance data for this barracks project is not yet available, the Army generally employs rigorous contract oversight, utilizes standardized procurement processes, and benefits from the expertise of its engineering corps and contracting specialists. However, like any large organization, they have faced challenges with cost overruns and schedule delays on complex projects in the past.

What has been the historical spending trend for military barracks construction by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on military barracks construction by the Department of the Army has generally been substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade troop housing across numerous installations worldwide. Spending fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, modernization initiatives, and infrastructure investment cycles. Factors such as troop levels, deployment tempos, and the age of existing facilities influence the demand for new barracks. The Army's budget for military construction, including barracks, is a significant portion of its overall capital investment, reflecting a consistent commitment to providing adequate living quarters for service members.

Were there any specific performance issues or concerns raised during the execution of this contract?

Based solely on the provided data snippet, there is no information available regarding specific performance issues or concerns that arose during the execution of this contract. The data reflects the contract award details, including the contractor, value, dates, and competition type. To ascertain any performance issues, one would need to consult contract performance reports, payment histories, modification logs, or any official documentation from the awarding agency (Department of the Army) or relevant oversight bodies that track contractor performance throughout the project lifecycle.

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: W911KB08R0005

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6500 INTERSTATE CIR, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,078,315

Exercised Options: $18,078,315

Current Obligation: $18,078,315

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline