Army awards $163.6M firm-fixed-price contract for general instruction building construction

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,365,410 ($16.4M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-11-25

End Date: 2011-04-16

Contract Duration: 507 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.4 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 507 days indicates a substantial construction project. 3. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts cost overrun risks to the contractor. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army, this contract supports military infrastructure. 5. The project falls under Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a broad sector. 6. The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, has a significant presence in federal construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $163.6 million for a general instruction building appears within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar military or institutional building projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests the government secured a defined cost, though the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the delivered facility.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded using full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and terms for the government. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by promoting market efficiencies and driving down costs through a robust bidding process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel who will utilize the new instruction building. The contract delivers essential construction services for a critical military facility. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the construction, likely a military installation. The project will likely involve a significant construction workforce, providing employment opportunities in the skilled 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 the operational readiness of the facility.
Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the longevity and functionality of the building.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to an established contractor like Whiting-Turner suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
Full and open competition mechanism aims to secure the best value.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Construction sector, specifically Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. This sector is characterized by large projects requiring specialized labor and materials. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities, including military bases, educational institutions, and administrative buildings. The market size for federal construction is substantial, with numerous large firms competing for these contracts.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. However, large prime contractors like Whiting-Turner are often required to meet subcontracting goals with small businesses as part of their overall federal contract obligations. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent to which the prime contractor utilizes small business subcontractors for specialized services or materials.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the relevant Army contracting command. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and ongoing oversight activities may not be fully public.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
General Building Construction
Federal Facilities Development
Department of Defense Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays
Risk of unforeseen site conditions
Quality control concerns
Contractor performance risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.4 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING

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 $16.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-11-25. End: 2011-04-16.

What is Whiting-Turner Contracting Company's track record with the Department of Defense?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company has a substantial history of working with the Department of Defense (DoD) and its various branches, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force. They have been awarded numerous contracts for a wide range of construction projects, from barracks and training facilities to research laboratories and administrative buildings. Their experience often includes projects on active military installations, requiring adherence to strict security protocols and operational tempo considerations. A review of federal procurement data would reveal the volume and types of contracts awarded to Whiting-Turner by the DoD over the years, providing insight into their performance and reliability in delivering complex military construction projects.

How does the $163.6 million award compare to similar Army building construction contracts?

The $163.6 million award for a general instruction building is a significant but not unprecedented figure for large-scale military construction projects. The U.S. Army frequently undertakes major construction initiatives to modernize its infrastructure, with contract values often ranging from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope, complexity, and location. Factors influencing this specific contract's value include the size and intended use of the building, the specific site requirements (e.g., seismic considerations, environmental regulations), and the prevailing construction market costs in Georgia at the time of award. Comparing it to other recent Army contracts for similar educational or administrative facilities would provide a clearer benchmark for its relative value.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price construction contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of this magnitude is the potential for the contractor to incur losses if actual costs exceed the agreed-upon price. While FFP shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, it can incentivize them to cut corners on quality or materials if not adequately monitored. For the government, risks include potential disputes over scope changes, unforeseen site conditions that may necessitate contract modifications (and thus increased cost), and contractor default or performance failures. Effective project management, rigorous oversight, and clear contract terms are essential to mitigate these risks.

What is the typical duration for a construction project of this scale and type?

A duration of 507 days (approximately 17 months) for a general instruction building project valued at $163.6 million is generally within the expected timeframe for a project of this scale. Large-scale construction projects, especially those involving complex systems, specialized facilities, or located on active military installations, often require significant planning, procurement, and execution phases. Factors such as weather, site preparation complexity, material lead times, and the number of distinct construction phases can influence the overall schedule. This duration suggests a comprehensive build-out rather than a simple structure.

How does the number of bids (3) impact the perceived value for taxpayers?

Receiving three bids for a contract of this size and nature suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bids generally lead to more competitive pricing, three bidders can still result in a fair market price, especially if the bidders are well-qualified and the competition is robust. If the three bidders were all major players in the federal construction market, the government likely received competitive offers. However, a lower number of bids could potentially indicate barriers to entry for smaller firms or a lack of widespread interest, which might slightly diminish the downward pressure on price compared to a scenario with numerous bidders.

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: W912HN07R0013

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 E JOPPA RD STE 800, BALTIMORE, MD, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,365,410

Exercised Options: $16,365,410

Current Obligation: $16,365,410

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912HN07D0055

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline