Army Awards $450M+ for Johnston Atoll Facilities, Raytheon Engineers & Constructors Selected

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $450,138,643 ($450.1M)

Contractor: Washington Demilitarization Company LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-11-24

End Date: 2013-09-24

Contract Duration: 5,053 days

Daily Burn Rate: $89.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE REDETERMINATION

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 199712!2100!0021!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0996C0081 !A!*!P00003 !19961105!19970926!049627573!802675199!001339159!N!0A564!RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCT!141 SPRING ST !LEXINGTON !MA!02421!99200!200!74!JOHNSTON ATOLL !JOHNSTON ATOLL !U.S. MINOR!0001!+000000290000!N!N!000000000000!Y299!ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !4953!3!*!*!C!B!N!B!D !U!A!1!001!N!1B!D!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: DENVER, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80237

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $450.1 million to WASHINGTON DEMILITARIZATION COMPANY LLC for work described as: 199712!2100!0021!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0996C0081 !A!*!P00003 !19961105!19970926!049627573!802675199!001339159!N!0A564!RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCT!141 SPRING ST !LEXINGTON !MA!02421!99200!200!74!JOHNSTON ATOLL !JOHNST… Key points: 1. Significant contract value exceeding $450 million for facility work. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher costs. 3. Long contract duration (1996-2013) may indicate complex or ongoing needs. 4. Construction sector spending, with specific focus on non-building facilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $450M+ over a long period is substantial. Without specific unit cost data or benchmarks for similar non-building facility projects, it's difficult to definitively assess pricing efficiency. The 'NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED' cost element raises concerns.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a limited competition approach. This significantly restricts price discovery and may lead to less favorable pricing for the government compared to a full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of robust competition for a contract of this magnitude could result in taxpayers paying more than necessary for the services rendered.

Public Impact

Taxpayers funded a large contract for facility development and maintenance. The project's location on Johnston Atoll, a U.S. Minor Outlying Island, suggests specialized logistical and environmental considerations. The long duration implies a sustained need for these facilities, potentially impacting long-term government operational costs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Long contract duration
Unclear cost breakdown

Positive Signals

Specific facility development
Long-term government support

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Construction sector, specifically for 'ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES'. Government spending in this area can vary widely based on infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and geopolitical requirements. Benchmarks are difficult without more specific project details.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded to small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there is no direct benefit to small businesses from this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests that standard competitive oversight processes may have been bypassed. Further investigation into the justification for limited competition and the subsequent oversight of contract performance would be warranted.

Related Government Programs

Architectural Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for inflated pricing due to limited competition
Unclear cost structure ('NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED')
Long contract duration may mask inefficiencies
Limited transparency on justification for non-competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $450.1 million to WASHINGTON DEMILITARIZATION COMPANY LLC. 199712!2100!0021!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0996C0081 !A!*!P00003 !19961105!19970926!049627573!802675199!001339159!N!0A564!RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCT!141 SPRING ST !LEXINGTON !MA!02421!99200!200!74!JOHNSTON ATOLL !JOHNSTON ATOLL !U.S. MINOR!0001!+000000290000!N!N!000000000000!Y299!ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !4953!3!*!*!C!B!N!B!D !U!A!1!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WASHINGTON DEMILITARIZATION COMPANY LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $450.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-24. End: 2013-09-24.

What was the specific justification for not competing this large construction contract, and what measures were in place to ensure fair pricing despite the limited competition?

The justification for not competing this contract is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, sole-source or limited competition awards require a documented justification, such as the existence of only one responsible source or urgent and compelling needs. Without this justification, it's impossible to assess the fairness of the pricing or the effectiveness of any oversight mechanisms intended to mitigate the risks associated with limited competition.

Given the long duration and significant value, what were the key performance indicators and oversight mechanisms used to manage risks and ensure value for money throughout the contract lifecycle?

The provided data does not detail the specific performance indicators or oversight mechanisms employed during the contract's execution. For a contract of this scale and duration, robust oversight would typically involve regular performance reviews, milestone tracking, quality assurance checks, and potentially independent cost reviews to ensure the government received value for its investment and that risks were effectively managed.

How did the 'NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED' cost element impact the government's ability to track and manage expenditures effectively over the contract's lifespan?

The 'NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED' cost element significantly hinders the government's ability to perform detailed cost analysis and track expenditures effectively. It makes it challenging to identify potential cost overruns, inefficiencies, or areas where savings could be realized, potentially leading to less efficient use of taxpayer funds and reduced accountability.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Architectural Services

Product/Service Code: SALVAGE SERVICES › DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE REDETERMINATION (A)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM

Address: 7800 E UNION AVE STE 100, DENVER, CO, 80237

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline