DoD's $27.1M Barracks Construction Contract Awarded to Watterson Construction for Alaska Facility

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,146,047 ($27.1M)

Contractor: Watterson Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-02-25

End Date: 2014-08-29

Contract Duration: 1,646 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSTRUCT WT COMPLEX BARRACKS

Place of Performance

Location: ELMENDORF AFB, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.1 million to WATTERSON CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: CONSTRUCT WT COMPLEX BARRACKS Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 4. Project duration of over 4 years indicates a substantial construction undertaking. 5. Awarded to a single contractor, highlighting the need for specialized construction capabilities. 6. Geographic location in Alaska may present unique logistical and environmental challenges.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the scope of work and comparable construction projects in Alaska. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to cap costs, but the total expenditure of $27.1 million for barracks construction is substantial. Further analysis would require comparing the cost per square foot or per bed to similar military housing projects in similar climates and regions. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns makes a precise value-for-money assessment difficult.

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. With 10 bidders participating, this suggests a healthy level of interest and a competitive environment. A larger number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government, as contractors vie for the award. The specific details of the bidding process and the range of bids received would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. The presence of multiple bidders helps ensure that the awarded price reflects market conditions and the contractor's ability to perform efficiently.

Public Impact

Service members stationed in Alaska will benefit from improved living quarters. The project delivers essential infrastructure to support military readiness and personnel welfare. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, potentially stimulating local economic activity. Construction activities may create temporary employment opportunities for the local workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise in Alaska's challenging environment.
Long project duration increases exposure to market fluctuations in material and labor costs.
Dependence on a single contractor for a large-scale project carries execution risk.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract helps mitigate cost escalation risks for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
Award to a single, presumably qualified, contractor indicates a focus on capability for this specific project.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a vital part of the broader construction industry. Military infrastructure projects like this are significant components of federal spending in this sector, often involving large-scale, complex builds. Comparable spending benchmarks would include other large barracks or facility construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for projects in similar geographic or climatic conditions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger firm, and the extent of small business participation would likely depend on Watterson Construction Co.'s subcontracting strategy. Without specific set-aside provisions or reporting requirements, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and project managers responsible for monitoring progress, quality, and adherence to contract terms. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Housing Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Alaska Infrastructure Projects
Barracks Modernization Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to remote location and environmental factors in Alaska.
Long project duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Limited data on specific performance metrics and value-for-money assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.1 million to WATTERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. CONSTRUCT WT COMPLEX 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 $27.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-02-25. End: 2014-08-29.

What was the specific scope of work for the barracks construction, and what were the key performance requirements?

The provided data identifies the contract as 'CONSTRUCT WT COMPLEX BARRACKS' with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 for Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. However, specific details regarding the scope of work, such as the number of barracks, capacity, square footage, amenities, or specific performance requirements (e.g., energy efficiency standards, security features), are not included in the abbreviated data. This level of detail is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the project's complexity and for accurate value benchmarking against similar construction endeavors. Without this, we can only infer that it involved the construction of a complex of barracks facilities.

How did Watterson Construction Co.'s bid compare to other bidders in terms of price and technical proposal?

The data indicates that 10 bids were received for this 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' contract. However, it does not provide information on the specific bid amounts submitted by Watterson Construction Co. or the other nine bidders, nor does it detail the evaluation criteria used for the technical proposals. To assess the competitiveness and value, it would be necessary to examine the bid tabulation and the source selection decision document. This would reveal if Watterson's price was the lowest, if it represented a significant discount from the government's estimate, and how its technical solution was rated relative to competitors.

What are the historical spending patterns for barracks construction by the Department of the Army in Alaska?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for barracks construction by the Department of the Army in Alaska would require accessing historical contract databases and filtering for similar projects (e.g., by NAICS code, keywords like 'barracks,' 'housing,' 'dormitory') within the specified geographic region. This contract, awarded in 2010, represents a single data point. Understanding broader trends would involve looking at spending over several fiscal years to identify average project costs, typical contract durations, and the prevalence of different contract types and competition levels for similar infrastructure needs in the region. This context helps determine if the $27.1 million award was within the expected range for such projects in Alaska.

What are the potential risks associated with constructing large facilities in Alaska, and how were they addressed in this contract?

Constructing large facilities in Alaska presents unique risks, including extreme weather conditions, permafrost stability issues, logistical challenges due to remote locations and limited infrastructure, and potentially higher labor and material costs. The abbreviated data does not specify how these risks were addressed. A thorough risk assessment would typically be part of the contract planning, potentially including site investigations, specialized engineering designs, contingency planning for weather delays, and specific clauses in the contract addressing unforeseen site conditions. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor assumed significant risk for cost overruns related to execution, but risks related to the inherent challenges of the Alaskan environment might have been mitigated through contract terms or government-provided information.

What is Watterson Construction Co.'s track record with large federal construction contracts, particularly for the Department of Defense?

The provided data only includes the award details for this specific contract. To assess Watterson Construction Co.'s track record, one would need to consult federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) to identify other contracts awarded to this company. Key aspects to examine would include the total value of contracts held, the types of projects undertaken (especially military construction), past performance ratings, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with projects in challenging environments like Alaska. This broader view is essential for understanding their capacity and reliability in executing a project of this magnitude and type.

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: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W911KB09R0021

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6500 INTERSTATE CIR, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99518

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,149,797

Exercised Options: $27,146,047

Current Obligation: $27,146,047

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline