DHS awards $26.1M for USCG Seattle facilities, with 3 bidders competing for construction

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,156,003 ($26.2M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2022-12-27

End Date: 2025-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,008 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DB CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO BUILD TEMPORARY FACILITIES AT USCG BASE SEATTLE, AND UTILITIES AT TERMINAL 46.

Place of Performance

Location: SEATTLE, KING County, WASHINGTON, 98134

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $26.2 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: DB CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO BUILD TEMPORARY FACILITIES AT USCG BASE SEATTLE, AND UTILITIES AT TERMINAL 46. Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the scope of construction and utilities work. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding environment. 3. The contract is a firm-fixed-price type, transferring risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of 1008 days indicates a significant, long-term construction effort. 5. The contract is positioned within the commercial and institutional building construction sector. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized for this contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $26.1 million for building temporary facilities and utilities at USCG Base Seattle appears to be within a reasonable range for a project of this scale and complexity. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for federal agencies would provide a more precise assessment, but the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor has accounted for all anticipated costs. The number of bidders (3) indicates a moderate level of competition, which typically helps in achieving fair pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. Three bids were received, indicating a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. While three bidders is not an exceptionally high number, it suggests that the opportunity was sufficiently attractive and the requirements were clear enough to draw multiple interested parties, which generally aids in price discovery and achieving a competitive price.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process, even with three bidders, is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to offer their best pricing and terms, likely resulting in a more cost-effective outcome compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The U.S. Coast Guard will benefit from improved temporary facilities and utilities at its Seattle base. Construction services will be delivered to enhance operational capabilities. The geographic impact is focused on Seattle, Washington. The project will likely involve a significant number of construction workers and related trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
Delays in construction schedule could impact Coast Guard operational readiness.
Quality control and adherence to specifications will be critical for long-term facility performance.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive pricing environment.
Experienced contractor (Whiting-Turner) likely brings expertise to the project.
Clear project scope for temporary facilities and utilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the construction industry that includes projects for government, education, healthcare, and other non-residential purposes. The market for federal construction is substantial, with agencies like Homeland Security frequently awarding contracts for infrastructure and facility upgrades. Benchmarks for similar federal building projects can vary widely based on location, complexity, and specific requirements, but a $26 million project for temporary facilities and utilities is a notable award.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that the primary contract was competed broadly, and the prime contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, will manage the subcontracting process. While this may limit direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors on this specific award, large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized services, potentially creating subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the U.S. Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract places a significant portion of the financial risk on the contractor, Whiting-Turner. Accountability will be measured against the contract's performance requirements, schedule, and quality standards. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific oversight mechanisms like regular progress reports and site inspections would be standard practice.

Related Government Programs

USCG Base Seattle Infrastructure Improvements
Department of Homeland Security Facilities Construction
Federal Building and Construction Contracts
Temporary Facility Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Risk of quality compromises in pursuit of contractor profit.
Definition and scope of 'temporary' facilities require clear management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $26.2 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. DB CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO BUILD TEMPORARY FACILITIES AT USCG BASE SEATTLE, AND UTILITIES AT TERMINAL 46.

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 Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-12-27. End: 2025-09-30.

What is the track record of Whiting-Turner Contracting Company on federal construction projects?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a well-established and large general contractor with a significant history of undertaking complex construction projects across various sectors, including federal government facilities. They have a broad portfolio that includes military installations, research facilities, and public infrastructure. Their experience with federal projects suggests they are familiar with the stringent requirements, regulations, and oversight processes common in government contracting. A review of their past performance on similar-sized projects for agencies like the Department of Defense or other federal entities would provide further insight into their reliability, quality of work, and ability to manage schedules and budgets effectively. Their extensive experience generally positions them as a capable contractor for substantial federal awards like this one.

How does the $26.1 million cost compare to similar federal construction projects for temporary facilities?

Benchmarking the $26.1 million cost against similar federal projects for temporary facilities is challenging without more specific data on project scope, location, and duration. However, the cost represents a substantial investment, suggesting a significant scope of work beyond basic temporary structures. Factors influencing cost include the complexity of utility installations (electrical, plumbing, HVAC), site preparation, environmental considerations, and the required lifespan of these 'temporary' facilities. For large-scale federal construction, especially in high-cost-of-living areas like Seattle, this figure is not inherently excessive. A detailed comparison would require analyzing the square footage, specific utility upgrades, and the duration these facilities are intended to serve, alongside prevailing construction market rates in the region.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for temporary facilities?

The primary risks for the government under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract are generally lower regarding cost overruns, as the contractor assumes most of the financial risk. However, risks can still emerge. For this project, potential risks include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise, leading to long-term maintenance problems. Schedule delays are another risk; if the contractor faces significant challenges (e.g., weather, supply chain issues, labor shortages), the project timeline could slip, impacting the Coast Guard's operational needs. Furthermore, the definition and scope of 'temporary' facilities need to be clearly managed to prevent scope creep or disputes over the longevity and required standards of the construction.

How effective is full and open competition likely to be in ensuring value for money on this $26.1M contract?

Full and open competition is generally the most effective method for ensuring value for money in federal contracting, as it maximizes the pool of potential bidders and encourages competitive pricing. With three bidders for this $26.1 million contract, there is a reasonable level of competition, suggesting that the government is likely to receive competitive bids. The firm-fixed-price contract type further enhances value by capping the government's financial exposure. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria used. If the competition is robust and the evaluation process is fair and focused on both price and technical merit, it should lead to a cost-effective outcome for the taxpayer.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar construction projects by the U.S. Coast Guard in the Seattle area?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar U.S. Coast Guard construction projects in the Seattle area would provide valuable context for this $26.1 million award. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to make a direct comparison. However, federal agencies like the Coast Guard often undertake infrastructure projects that can range from minor repairs to major facility overhauls. The cost of construction in major metropolitan areas like Seattle is typically higher due to labor costs, material prices, and regulatory requirements. If past projects of similar scale and complexity in the region have cost comparable amounts, it suggests this award is in line with historical trends. Conversely, a significant deviation could warrant further investigation into the specific drivers of cost for this particular contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 70Z05022R43000009

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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,156,003

Exercised Options: $26,156,003

Current Obligation: $26,156,003

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 70Z04718DWHITUR00

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline