Haskell Company awarded $17.6M for P-974 Engineering Product Support Facility design-build

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,622,713 ($17.6M)

Contractor: THE Haskell Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-02-17

End Date: 2011-01-23

Contract Duration: 705 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASE YEAR FOR THE DESIGN BUILD/DESIGN P-974 ENGINEERING PRODUCT SUPPORT FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: CHERRY POINT, CRAVEN County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28533

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.6 million to THE HASKELL COMPANY for work described as: BASE YEAR FOR THE DESIGN BUILD/DESIGN P-974 ENGINEERING PRODUCT SUPPORT FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract awarded for a design-build project, indicating a single point of responsibility for both design and construction. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that cost risks are primarily borne by the contractor. 3. The project is located in North Carolina, potentially impacting local construction workforce and material suppliers. 4. The contract duration of 705 days points to a significant construction timeline. 5. The base year value of over $17.6 million sets a benchmark for this type of facility construction. 6. The project falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a broad category with varying market dynamics.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The base year value of $17.6 million for a design-build engineering product support facility appears within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. However, without specific details on the facility's size, complexity, and scope of engineering support, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar, recently awarded design-build facilities by the Department of the Navy or other DoD branches would provide a clearer picture of competitive pricing and overall 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 4 bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, potentially resulting in better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces and ensures the government receives proposals from a broad range of capable firms, maximizing the chances of securing the best possible outcome.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy, which will receive a new engineering product support facility. The services delivered include the design and construction of a specialized facility. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, where the facility will be built. The project will likely have implications for the local construction workforce, requiring skilled labor for its duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or design complexities arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Dependence on the contractor's ability to manage both design and construction phases effectively to avoid delays or quality issues.
Risk of scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined and managed throughout the project lifecycle.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process, likely resulting in a qualified contractor.
The design-build approach can streamline the project delivery process by consolidating responsibilities.

Sector Analysis

The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector encompasses a wide range of projects, from office buildings to specialized industrial facilities. The market for design-build services within this sector is competitive, with many firms capable of undertaking complex projects. The Department of Defense is a significant client in this sector, frequently awarding large contracts for infrastructure and specialized facilities. Benchmarking this contract's value against other DoD design-build projects for similar facilities would be informative.

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. The award to The Haskell Company, a presumably larger entity, suggests that small businesses may not have been the primary focus for this specific prime contract. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Navy. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the government's primary oversight will focus on ensuring the contractor meets the specified design and construction requirements within the agreed-upon budget and timeline. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, and while specific IG jurisdiction isn't detailed here, the DoD Inspector General would have oversight authority over potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Military Construction
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Design-Build Construction Projects
Engineering Facility Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or design complexities arise.
Risk of quality compromises if contractor focuses on cost-cutting.
Potential for project delays if contractor faces financial or logistical challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.6 million to THE HASKELL COMPANY. BASE YEAR FOR THE DESIGN BUILD/DESIGN P-974 ENGINEERING PRODUCT SUPPORT FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE HASKELL COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-02-17. End: 2011-01-23.

What is the track record of The Haskell Company in delivering similar design-build projects for the Department of Defense?

Assessing The Haskell Company's track record requires a review of their past performance on similar government contracts. This would involve examining contract databases for previous awards, project completion records, and any reported performance issues or accolades. Specifically, looking for experience with engineering product support facilities or other specialized industrial/institutional buildings within the DoD would be crucial. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project delivery would indicate a lower performance risk for this current contract. Conversely, a pattern of delays, cost overruns, or quality disputes would raise concerns about their capability to execute this project effectively.

How does the $17.6 million base year cost compare to similar engineering product support facility construction projects?

To benchmark the $17.6 million base year cost, one would need to identify comparable design-build projects for engineering product support facilities awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies in recent years. Key comparison points would include the facility's square footage, complexity of engineering requirements, and geographic location, as these factors significantly influence construction costs. Analyzing the price per square foot or per functional unit of the facility would provide a more granular comparison. If this contract's cost per unit is significantly higher than similar projects, it could indicate less competitive pricing or unique project requirements. Conversely, if it aligns with or is lower than benchmarks, it suggests a potentially good value.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price design-build contract for a facility of this nature?

The primary risks in a firm-fixed-price (FFP) design-build contract, while generally favorable to the government regarding cost certainty, still carry inherent risks. For the contractor, the main risk is underestimating the design and construction costs, leading to reduced profit or even a loss if unforeseen issues arise. For the government, risks include potential compromises in quality if the contractor seeks to cut costs to protect their profit margin, or delays if the contractor struggles with the fixed price. In a design-build scenario, the integration of design and construction under one entity can mitigate some coordination risks but introduces a risk of design flaws impacting construction, or vice-versa, if not managed meticulously. Scope definition is critical; any deviation from the initial scope can lead to costly change orders.

What is the expected effectiveness of the P-974 Engineering Product Support Facility once completed?

The effectiveness of the P-974 Engineering Product Support Facility will be measured by its ability to meet the operational requirements of the Department of the Navy for engineering product support. This includes providing adequate space and infrastructure for maintenance, repair, testing, and storage of engineering products. Its success will depend on the quality of the design, the robustness of the construction, and the facility's ability to support the intended workflows and technological needs of the personnel using it. Performance metrics could include reduced turnaround times for product support, improved operational readiness, and enhanced capabilities for handling specific types of engineering equipment. The facility's design should anticipate future needs and technological advancements to ensure long-term effectiveness.

How has spending on Commercial and Institutional Building Construction by the Department of the Navy trended over the past five years?

Analyzing the spending trends for Commercial and Institutional Building Construction by the Department of the Navy over the past five years would provide context for this $17.6 million award. This involves examining historical contract data to identify the volume and value of similar construction projects. A rising trend might indicate increased investment in infrastructure, potentially leading to more competitive bidding as more firms pursue these opportunities. Conversely, a declining trend could suggest budget constraints or a shift in priorities. Understanding these patterns helps assess whether this contract represents a typical level of investment or a significant deviation, and how market conditions might be influenced by overall Navy spending in this sector.

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: N4008507R0438

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 111 RIVERSIDE AVE, JACKSONVILLE, FL, 32202

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,622,713

Exercised Options: $17,622,713

Current Obligation: $17,622,713

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4008508D9737

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline