Fort Benning Barracks and Warehouses contract awarded to Whiting-Turner for $26M, completed on time

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,976,014 ($26.0M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-22

End Date: 2010-05-02

Contract Duration: 587 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE COMPLEX PHASE 2 BARRACKS AND WAREHOUSES, FORT BENNING, GA

Place of Performance

Location: COLUMBUS, MUSCOGEE County, GEORGIA, 31902

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.0 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE COMPLEX PHASE 2 BARRACKS AND WAREHOUSES, FORT BENNING, GA Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Project completion within the estimated duration suggests effective project management. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure likely transferred cost risk to the contractor. 4. The project's focus on barracks and warehouses indicates support for troop housing and equipment storage. 5. Geographic concentration in Georgia may have implications for local economic impact. 6. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further examination of subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $26 million for barracks and warehouses at Fort Benning appears reasonable for a project of this scale and complexity. While direct comparisons are difficult without more specific project details, construction costs for similar military facilities can vary widely based on location, materials, and specific requirements. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor assumed the majority of the cost risk, which can be beneficial for the government if managed effectively. Benchmarking against similar construction projects in the region or for the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value assessment.

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 offers. The data shows two bids were received, which is a relatively low number for a full and open competition of this magnitude. A higher number of bidders typically suggests a more robust competitive environment, potentially leading to more favorable pricing for the government. The limited number of bids may warrant an investigation into potential barriers to entry or market concentration within the relevant construction sector.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally preferred, the low number of bids received could mean that taxpayers did not benefit from the most competitive pricing possible. Further analysis could explore if the bid requirements or market conditions limited participation.

Public Impact

Service members at Fort Benning benefit from improved housing and storage facilities. The construction project provided employment opportunities within the Georgia region. The completed facilities directly support the operational readiness of the training brigade. The project contributes to the modernization of military infrastructure at a key training installation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Low number of bids received under full and open competition may indicate limited market interest or high barriers to entry.
Lack of small business set-aside or reported subcontracting data raises concerns about opportunities for small businesses in this contract.
The specific nature of 'training support brigade complex' could imply specialized construction requirements that might limit the pool of qualified bidders.

Positive Signals

Project was completed within the estimated duration, indicating effective project management and execution.
Firm-fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded by the Department of the Army, suggesting alignment with critical military infrastructure needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a broad category encompassing the building of non-residential structures. The market for military construction is a significant segment within this sector, often characterized by large-scale projects with specific security and operational requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks for military barracks and warehouse construction can vary greatly depending on the size, complexity, and location of the facility. The Department of Defense is a major client in this sector, frequently awarding large contracts for infrastructure development and maintenance.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it provide information on subcontracting. This suggests that the primary contract was likely awarded to a large construction firm. Without specific subcontracting plans or reporting, it is difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses participated in this project. This lack of small business involvement could represent a missed opportunity to leverage the capabilities of the small business sector and foster economic growth within local communities.

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 onus on the contractor to deliver the project within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction, Army
Barracks and Dormitory Construction
Warehouse Construction
Department of Defense Facilities

Risk Flags

Low bidder count in full and open competition
Lack of reported small business subcontracting

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.0 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE COMPLEX PHASE 2 BARRACKS AND WAREHOUSES, FORT BENNING, GA

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 $26.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-22. End: 2010-05-02.

What was the specific scope of work for the 'TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE COMPLEX PHASE 2 BARRACKS AND WAREHOUSES' project?

The project, 'TRAINING SUPPORT BRIGADE COMPLEX PHASE 2 BARRACKS AND WAREHOUSES, FORT BENNING, GA,' involved the construction of essential facilities for a training brigade. This likely included the erection of barracks to house military personnel and warehouses for the storage of equipment, supplies, and training materials. The 'Phase 2' designation suggests this was part of a larger development or upgrade initiative at Fort Benning. Specifics regarding square footage, materials, and specialized systems (e.g., HVAC, security) would be detailed in the contract's statement of work, which is not provided in the summary data. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies a defined scope that the contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, was obligated to complete within the agreed budget.

How does the awarded amount of $25,976,013.67 compare to similar military construction projects for barracks and warehouses?

Comparing the $26 million award for Fort Benning's barracks and warehouses requires context regarding project size, location, and specific features. Military construction costs are highly variable. Factors such as prevailing wage rates, material costs in Georgia, site preparation needs, and the specific amenities included in the barracks (e.g., single vs. multi-occupancy rooms, common areas) significantly influence the total cost. While $26 million is a substantial sum, it may be within the expected range for constructing multiple buildings of this type for a military installation. Benchmarking against other Army Corps of Engineers or Department of the Army construction projects of similar scale and purpose, completed around the 2008-2010 timeframe, would provide a more accurate comparison. Without such detailed comparative data, assessing the precise value-for-money is challenging.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a construction project of this nature?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are designed to transfer cost risk from the government to the contractor. For a construction project like the Fort Benning barracks and warehouses, the primary risk for the government is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise or costs escalate beyond their initial estimates. However, the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. Potential risks for the contractor include underestimating labor or material costs, encountering unexpected site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), or experiencing delays due to weather or supply chain disruptions, all of which could erode their profit margin or lead to losses if not managed meticulously. Effective government oversight is crucial to ensure quality standards are met despite the FFP structure.

What does the low number of bids (2) in a full and open competition suggest about the market for this type of construction?

Receiving only two bids for a $26 million construction project under full and open competition can suggest several market dynamics. It might indicate a concentrated market where only a few large firms possess the necessary bonding capacity, experience, and resources to undertake such a project. Alternatively, it could point to specific requirements in the solicitation (e.g., unique technical specifications, stringent pre-qualification criteria) that inadvertently limited the number of interested bidders. Geographic limitations, the timing of the solicitation relative to other major projects, or the perceived profitability of the contract could also play a role. From a taxpayer perspective, fewer bidders generally translate to less competitive pricing, potentially resulting in a higher final cost than if more firms had vied for the contract.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded to Whiting-Turner Contracting Company?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a well-established, large-scale general contractor known for undertaking significant construction projects across various sectors, including military, institutional, and commercial. Their involvement suggests the project met the company's criteria for size and complexity. For the Department of the Army, awarding the contract to a reputable firm like Whiting-Turner likely aimed to ensure project execution reliability and adherence to quality standards. The company's track record would have been a key factor during the evaluation process in the full and open competition. Their experience in handling large government contracts implies familiarity with the regulatory and administrative requirements associated with such projects.

How might the lack of small business participation impact the local economy around Fort Benning?

If the primary contractor, Whiting-Turner, did not significantly utilize small business subcontractors, the direct economic impact on the local small business ecosystem around Fort Benning, Georgia, might be limited. Small businesses often provide specialized services (e.g., electrical, plumbing, landscaping, material supply) and their engagement injects capital and creates jobs within the community. A lack of subcontracting opportunities for local small firms means that a portion of the contract's economic benefit may not have been distributed locally. While the prime contractor's workforce may have included local hires, the absence of a formal small business subcontracting plan or reported achievements means that the multiplier effect on local small businesses could be less pronounced compared to contracts with robust small business participation goals.

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: W912HN07R0007

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 E JOPPA RD STE 800, BALTIMORE, MD, 21286

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,976,014

Exercised Options: $25,976,014

Current Obligation: $25,976,014

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN07D0049

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline