Whiting-Turner Contracting Company awarded $19.9M for construction services, exceeding initial estimates by $2.7M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,891,928 ($19.9M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-17

End Date: 2010-09-30

Contract Duration: 743 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: COF, EUSTIS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEE, PETERSBURG CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23801

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.9 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: COF, EUSTIS Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair, with a notable cost overrun of $2.7M against the initial estimate. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract type mitigating some cost escalation risks. 4. Performance context is limited, but the duration of 743 days suggests a substantial project. 5. Sector positioning is within commercial and institutional building construction, a common area for large federal contracts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $19.9M is 15.7% higher than the initial estimate of $17.2M ($19.9M - $2.7M). While fixed-price contracts aim to control costs, the significant difference between the estimate and the final award warrants scrutiny. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for the Department of the Army would provide further insight into whether this price represents a reasonable market value, considering the project's scope and duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to vie for the contract, driving down prices and improving the quality of proposals received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially military personnel or civilian employees who will utilize the constructed facilities. Services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, likely encompassing new builds or significant renovations. The geographic impact is centered in Virginia, where the contract was performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, project managers, engineers, and support staff employed by the prime contractor and any subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost growth from estimate to award ($2.7M) suggests potential issues with initial budgeting or scope definition.
Long contract duration (743 days) can sometimes lead to unforeseen challenges and cost escalations, even in fixed-price contracts.
Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type helps to cap the government's financial exposure.
The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a well-established entity in the construction industry.

Sector Analysis

The commercial and institutional building construction sector is a significant part of the federal contracting landscape, encompassing a wide range of projects from office buildings to specialized facilities. Federal spending in this sector is often driven by infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and base improvements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per project for similar types of buildings constructed for government agencies.

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 large business. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses within the ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which places the financial risk on the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project performance and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Cost overrun from estimate to award.
Potential for scope creep or poorly defined initial requirements given the estimate variance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.9 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. COF, EUSTIS

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 Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-17. End: 2010-09-30.

What was the specific nature of the construction project awarded to Whiting-Turner Contracting Company?

The contract data identifies the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 236220, which corresponds to Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. This broad category encompasses the construction of non-residential buildings such as office buildings, warehouses, factories, and public institutions. Without more specific project details, it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the facility constructed or renovated. However, given the awarding agency is the Department of the Army, it is plausible that the project involved facilities for military personnel, administrative functions, or support services at a Department of Defense installation.

How does the final award amount of $19.9M compare to the initial estimated cost of $17.2M?

The final award amount of $19,891,927.55 significantly exceeded the initial estimate of $17,214,707.55 (derived from the difference between award and estimate). This represents an increase of approximately $2.68 million, or about 15.6%. Such a variance could stem from various factors including changes in project scope, unforeseen site conditions, fluctuations in material costs, or initial underestimation. While fixed-price contracts aim to contain costs, a substantial difference between estimate and award can raise questions about the accuracy of the initial budgeting process or the effectiveness of cost control during the bidding phase.

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

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a large and established construction firm with a significant history of federal contracting. While this specific data point does not detail their entire federal portfolio, their presence as a prime contractor on a nearly $20 million project for the Department of the Army suggests a substantial track record. A deeper analysis would involve reviewing their contract history across various agencies, including the Department of Defense, to assess their performance, past issues, and overall reliability in delivering federal projects on time and within budget. Their size and experience generally indicate a capacity to handle complex federal construction requirements.

What does the competition level (3 bidders) imply for the taxpayer in terms of cost savings or value?

Having three bidders for a contract of this magnitude suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders can often lead to more aggressive pricing, three offers generally provide enough choice to foster price discovery and encourage competitive bids. This level of competition is typically sufficient to prevent a situation where a single contractor can dictate terms. For taxpayers, this implies that the government likely received a reasonably competitive price, avoiding the potential overpayment that could occur in a sole-source or very limited competition scenario. However, a more robust competition with five or more bidders might have yielded even greater cost savings.

Are there any specific risk flags associated with this contract type (Firm Fixed Price) or the contractor?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type itself is generally considered low risk for the government, as it shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. However, risks can still arise if the initial scope is poorly defined, leading to change orders, or if the contractor underbid significantly to win the contract and struggles with execution. For Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, a large and experienced firm, the primary risks would likely be related to project management, unforeseen site conditions, or market volatility in material and labor costs, which they are contractually obligated to absorb. The significant difference between the estimate and the award price could be an indicator of potential bidding strategy risks or scope definition challenges.

How does this contract fit within the broader context of federal spending on construction services?

Federal spending on construction services is a substantial component of the government's budget, supporting infrastructure development, military readiness, and public facilities. Contracts like this one, for commercial and institutional building construction, are common and essential for maintaining and expanding government assets. The $19.9 million award is a significant sum, placing it in the mid-to-large tier of federal construction contracts. Benchmarking this against overall federal construction spending, or specifically against Department of the Army construction budgets, would reveal its relative scale and importance within the agency's capital investment strategy.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9123607R0001

Offers Received: 3

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,891,928

Exercised Options: $19,891,928

Current Obligation: $19,891,928

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9123608D0069

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline