DoD's $14.7M Power Line Construction Contract Awarded to Whiting-Turner in 2006

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,692,872 ($14.7M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-30

End Date: 2008-06-30

Contract Duration: 639 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: OPTION YEAR ONE

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20374

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.7 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: OPTION YEAR ONE Key points: 1. Contract awarded for power and communication line construction, indicating infrastructure development. 2. The contract was competed fully and openly, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty for the government. 4. The duration of the contract was approximately 21 months. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy. 6. The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, has a history of large federal contracts. 7. The contract was awarded in the District of Columbia. 8. No small business set-aside was utilized for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work and the exact services rendered. However, the total award amount of $14.7 million for power and communication line construction over a period of roughly 21 months suggests a significant infrastructure project. Comparing this to similar projects would require detailed cost breakdowns and geographic context. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor assumed the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if the final price reflects efficient execution.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates 17 bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of interest and competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood that the government secures the best value. The specific details of the bidding process, such as the range of bids submitted, are not available but the number of offers is a positive sign.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. The 17 bids received indicate that the government had multiple options to choose from, driving down costs through competitive pressure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of the Navy and potentially other federal entities requiring power and communication infrastructure in the District of Columbia. The services delivered include the construction of power and communication lines, essential for maintaining and upgrading military or government facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in the District of Columbia, where the construction activities took place. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers, engineers, and project managers involved in the project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's execution beyond the final award.
The contract duration of 639 days (approx. 21 months) for a fixed-price contract could present risks if unforeseen complexities arose.
Limited information on the specific scope of 'Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction' hinders a precise risk assessment.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under full and open competition with 17 bids, indicating a robust selection process.
The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a well-established entity with experience in large-scale construction projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically focusing on utility infrastructure. The market for power and communication line construction is substantial, driven by the need for new installations, upgrades, and maintenance of existing networks for both public and private entities. Federal spending in this area often supports military bases, government facilities, and critical infrastructure projects. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and scale of the lines being constructed (e.g., underground vs. overhead, voltage capacity).

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, as indicated by the 'sb' field being false. Consequently, small businesses were not specifically targeted for this award. However, it is possible that small businesses could have participated as subcontractors to the prime contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company. The extent of small business subcontracting is not detailed in the provided data, making it difficult to assess the broader impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for federal contracts is typically managed by the contracting agency, in this case, the Department of the Navy. Mechanisms include contract administration, performance monitoring, and potentially audits. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General offices within agencies like the Department of Defense are responsible for investigating fraud, waste, and abuse, and would have jurisdiction if any issues arose concerning this contract's execution or award.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Utility Infrastructure Projects
Federal Building and Facilities Maintenance
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Contract Awarded in 2006: Older contracts may not reflect current market prices or technological standards.
Limited Performance Data: Lack of detailed performance metrics makes post-award assessment difficult.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.7 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. OPTION YEAR ONE

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 Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-30. End: 2008-06-30.

What was the specific scope of work for the 'Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction' under this contract?

The provided data offers a high-level description of 'Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction' but lacks specific details on the scope of work. This could encompass a wide range of activities, from installing new underground or overhead power lines and communication cables to constructing associated support structures like poles, conduits, and substations. The exact nature of the project, its scale (e.g., miles of lines, number of structures), and the specific technologies involved would determine the complexity and ultimate cost. Without a detailed statement of work or project specifications, it's difficult to ascertain the precise services rendered beyond the general categorization.

How did Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's bid compare to the other 16 bidders in terms of price and technical proposal?

The provided data confirms that 17 bids were received for this contract, indicating robust competition. However, it does not include specific details about the pricing or technical proposals of each bidder, nor does it rank them. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's winning bid compared to the others. In a full and open competition, the award is typically made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the government, considering both price and other evaluation factors. The absence of this comparative data limits a granular assessment of the price negotiation and selection process.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this contract, and how did Whiting-Turner perform against them?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) that were established for this contract or detail Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's performance against them. Federal contracts, especially those for construction, typically include performance standards related to schedule adherence, quality of work, safety compliance, and adherence to specifications. The success of the contract would be assessed based on whether these standards were met. Without access to the contract's performance work statement or post-award performance evaluations, it is impossible to provide a quantitative or qualitative assessment of Whiting-Turner's performance beyond the fact that the contract was awarded and presumably completed within its fixed-price parameters.

What is Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's overall track record with federal contracts, particularly in the construction of utility infrastructure?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a large, well-established construction firm with a significant history of performing work for the federal government across various agencies and sectors. While the provided data pertains to a specific 2006 contract for power and communication line construction, their broader portfolio includes numerous federal projects. A comprehensive review of their federal contracting history would reveal extensive experience in large-scale construction, including infrastructure development. Their track record generally indicates a capacity to handle complex projects, though specific performance on individual contracts can vary. This particular contract, awarded under full and open competition, suggests they were deemed a capable and competitive bidder at the time.

How does the $14.7 million award amount compare to typical federal spending on similar power and communication line construction projects?

The $14.7 million award for power and communication line construction in 2006 is a substantial amount, indicative of a significant infrastructure project. However, comparing it directly to 'typical' federal spending is challenging without more context. Factors such as the geographic location (District of Columbia can have higher costs), the specific type of infrastructure (e.g., underground vs. overhead, high-voltage transmission vs. local distribution), the complexity of the terrain, and the prevailing market conditions in 2006 all influence project costs. Larger military installations or major urban infrastructure upgrades could easily reach or exceed this figure. Without detailed project specifications and comparable project data from the same period and region, a precise benchmark is difficult to establish, but it represents a significant investment in utility infrastructure.

Were there any notable risks or challenges associated with this contract, either identified during the bidding process or encountered during execution?

The provided data does not explicitly detail any specific risks or challenges identified during the bidding process or encountered during the execution of this contract. However, general risks inherent in large construction projects of this nature include potential for unforeseen site conditions (e.g., underground utilities, soil stability), weather delays, material cost fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price), labor availability, and coordination with existing infrastructure and stakeholders. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract places the primary financial risk of cost overruns on the contractor, Whiting-Turner. The duration of approximately 21 months also implies a project of considerable scope, which inherently carries execution risks that must be managed by the contractor.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Utility System Construction › Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 E JOPPA RD, BALTIMORE, MD, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,692,872

Exercised Options: $14,692,872

Current Obligation: $14,692,872

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247704D0032

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline