GSA awards $26.1M design-build contract for NASA Langley administrative building to Whiting-Turner

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,114,838 ($26.1M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2009-04-15

End Date: 2011-08-30

Contract Duration: 867 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ONE AT THE NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER IN HAMPTON, VA.

Place of Performance

Location: HAMPTON, HAMPTON (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 23681

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $26.1 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ONE AT THE NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER IN HAMPTON, VA. Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust market search. 2. The contract utilized a firm-fixed-price structure, transferring risk to the contractor. 3. Project duration of 867 days indicates a significant construction undertaking. 4. The award was made by the General Services Administration (GSA), a major federal real estate manager. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract value of $26.1 million falls within a moderate spending range for federal construction projects of this nature.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $26.1 million for a design-build administrative building at NASA Langley appears reasonable given the scope. While direct comparisons are difficult without detailed project specifications, GSA's extensive experience in managing such projects suggests a degree of value assessment during the procurement process. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract also implies that the contractor assumed significant cost risk, which is typically factored into the pricing to ensure value for the government.

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 presence of 6 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces and ensures the government receives the best possible value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are NASA Langley Research Center personnel who will gain a new administrative facility. The project delivers design and construction services for a new administrative office building. The geographic impact is localized to Hampton, Virginia, where NASA Langley is located. The contract supports jobs in the construction sector, including architects, engineers, and skilled trades.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, though mitigated by firm-fixed-price.
Schedule delays could impact NASA's operational timelines if not managed effectively.
Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the facility meets NASA's standards.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Design-build approach can streamline the project delivery process.
Full and open competition likely resulted in competitive pricing.
Experienced contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is likely to deliver a quality product.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal agencies, particularly those with large research and development facilities like NASA, frequently engage in construction projects to maintain and upgrade infrastructure. Spending in this sector is influenced by federal budget allocations for facilities management and modernization, as well as economic conditions affecting private sector construction.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and there is no indication of a small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, a large business, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's strategy and GSA's requirements, if any, for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing this contract. Oversight mechanisms would include regular progress meetings, site inspections, and review of project documentation. Accountability is ensured through the firm-fixed-price contract terms, which hold the contractor responsible for delivering the project within the agreed-upon cost and schedule. Transparency is typically maintained through contract award databases and public reporting of federal spending.

Related Government Programs

NASA Facilities Modernization Projects
GSA Public Buildings Service Construction Contracts
Federal Administrative Building Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth if unforeseen site conditions are encountered.
Risk of schedule delays impacting NASA's operational timelines.
Ensuring quality of construction meets NASA's stringent standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $26.1 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ONE AT THE NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER IN HAMPTON, VA.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-15. End: 2011-08-30.

What is the track record of Whiting-Turner Contracting Company with federal construction projects, particularly with GSA and NASA?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company has a substantial track record of performing work for federal agencies, including the General Services Administration (GSA) and NASA. They are a large, well-established construction firm known for managing complex projects across various sectors. Their experience often includes design-build delivery methods, similar to this contract. A review of federal procurement data would likely reveal numerous past awards to Whiting-Turner for similar types of construction, indicating a familiarity with federal contracting requirements, regulations, and performance expectations. Their history suggests a capacity to handle projects of this scale and complexity, though specific performance on past NASA or GSA projects would require a deeper dive into contract performance reports and award histories.

How does the awarded price of $26.1 million compare to similar administrative building construction projects managed by GSA?

Benchmarking the $26.1 million award requires comparing it against similar projects in terms of size, complexity, location, and delivery method. GSA manages a vast portfolio of federal buildings, and construction costs can vary significantly based on these factors. For a design-build administrative building of substantial size (implied by the contract duration and scope), this figure appears within a reasonable range for federal projects. However, without specific details on the square footage, specific design requirements, and prevailing local construction costs in Hampton, VA, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. GSA's internal cost estimating and benchmarking tools would be the most accurate source for comparison, but publicly available data suggests this is a moderate investment for a significant federal facility construction.

What are the primary risks associated with this design-build contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risks in a design-build contract like this include potential design deficiencies, unforeseen site conditions, contractor performance issues, and schedule delays. The firm-fixed-price structure inherently transfers significant cost risk to Whiting-Turner, incentivizing them to manage costs effectively. Mitigation strategies employed by GSA would include thorough review of the design documents, pre-construction site investigations, robust contract administration with regular progress monitoring, and performance bonds. The use of a reputable and experienced contractor like Whiting-Turner also serves as a risk mitigation factor, as they are expected to have established processes for managing quality, safety, and schedule.

What is the historical spending pattern for administrative building construction at NASA Langley Research Center?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for administrative building construction at NASA Langley Research Center would involve examining past GSA or NASA procurements for similar facilities. This contract, awarded in 2009, represents a specific investment in infrastructure modernization. To understand patterns, one would look at the frequency and value of previous construction contracts for administrative or research support buildings at the site over the last decade or two. This could reveal whether such projects are cyclical, driven by specific modernization initiatives, or represent a consistent level of investment in facility upkeep and expansion. Without access to NASA Langley's specific historical procurement data, it's difficult to detail these patterns, but federal agencies typically have ongoing needs for facility upgrades and new construction.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact the government's financial exposure and the contractor's incentives?

A Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type is designed to provide the government with cost certainty. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This shifts the majority of the financial risk from the government to the contractor. Consequently, the contractor has a strong incentive to control costs, improve efficiency, and manage the project effectively to maximize their profit margin. For the government, the primary benefit is predictability in budgeting and expenditure. However, the initial price negotiated must be carefully determined to be fair and reasonable, as the contractor may build in contingencies to cover potential risks, which could result in a higher initial price compared to other contract types if not properly negotiated.

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: TWO STEP

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,117,894

Exercised Options: $26,117,894

Current Obligation: $26,114,838

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline