DoD's $47M contract for Visiting Quarters & Utilities Upgrade awarded to Manhattan Construction Company LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $46,991,610 ($47.0M)

Contractor: Manhattan Construction Company LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-28

End Date: 2010-04-07

Contract Duration: 922 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: VISITING QUARTERS&UPGRADE UTILITIES

Place of Performance

Location: ANDREWS AFB, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20762

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $47.0 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC for work described as: VISITING QUARTERS&UPGRADE UTILITIES Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the scope of infrastructure upgrades. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a robust bidding process for this significant project. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, typical for large-scale construction with a fixed-price contract. 4. Performance context suggests a multi-year project requiring substantial contractor management. 5. Sector positioning places this within the broader defense construction and facilities management landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $47 million for Visiting Quarters & Utilities Upgrade is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale military construction projects suggests this figure is within a reasonable range, though specific comparable projects for utility upgrades are difficult to pinpoint without more granular data. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract aims to control costs, but the final value will depend on the contractor's efficiency and management of unforeseen issues.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. With two bids received, the level of competition was present but could have been higher for a project of this magnitude. This suggests that while the process was competitive, the pricing may not have been driven down to the absolute lowest possible point due to the limited number of direct competitors.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure fair pricing. However, with only two bids, there's a possibility that more bidders could have led to even greater cost savings.

Public Impact

Military personnel and visitors will benefit from improved living quarters and essential utility services. The project delivers critical infrastructure upgrades to a Department of the Navy facility. Geographic impact is localized to the specific base or installation where the work is performed. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise.
Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring quality of work meets stringent military standards.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a vetted contractor.
Project addresses essential infrastructure needs, enhancing facility longevity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, specifically focusing on facilities management and upgrades for government entities. The defense construction market is a significant segment, characterized by large-scale projects, stringent security requirements, and often long-term maintenance needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other major renovation or new construction projects on military installations, which can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the prime contractor, Manhattan Construction Company LLC, is likely a large business. The absence of set-aside provisions means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily depend on the prime contractor's voluntary subcontracting efforts, which are not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, performance standards, and inspection protocols. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports are usually internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
Facilities Engineering and Maintenance
Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth due to unforeseen site conditions.
Risk of schedule slippage impacting facility readiness.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $47.0 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC. VISITING QUARTERS&UPGRADE UTILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $47.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-28. End: 2010-04-07.

What is the track record of Manhattan Construction Company LLC with the Department of Defense?

Manhattan Construction Company LLC has a history of working with the Department of Defense, as evidenced by this contract. To fully assess their track record, a deeper dive into their past performance on similar projects for the DoD would be necessary. This would include examining past contract values, project types (e.g., barracks, utilities, administrative buildings), on-time and on-budget completion rates, and any documented performance issues or awards. Understanding their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and large-scale infrastructure upgrades is crucial for evaluating their capability to successfully execute this specific project.

How does the $46.99 million cost compare to similar utility upgrade projects for military bases?

Directly comparing the $46.99 million cost to similar utility upgrade projects is challenging without more specific data on the scope of work (e.g., type of utilities, scale of upgrade, specific base infrastructure needs). However, large-scale infrastructure projects on military installations often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This contract's value appears substantial, suggesting a comprehensive upgrade. Benchmarking would ideally involve analyzing the cost per square foot or per linear foot of utility line replaced/upgraded, adjusted for geographic location and specific technical requirements. Given the firm fixed-price nature, the DoD aimed to cap costs, but the complexity of utility work can lead to unforeseen expenses.

What are the primary risks associated with a large-scale utility upgrade contract?

Primary risks for a large-scale utility upgrade contract include unforeseen subsurface conditions (e.g., encountering unexpected soil types, pre-existing utilities, or environmental hazards), which can lead to significant cost overruns and schedule delays, especially in older facilities. Another major risk is the potential for disruption to ongoing base operations; utility systems are critical, and their interruption must be carefully managed. Technical risks involve the integration of new systems with legacy infrastructure and ensuring compliance with evolving environmental and safety regulations. Furthermore, the availability and cost of specialized labor and materials can fluctuate, impacting the contractor's ability to maintain the fixed price.

How effective are firm fixed-price contracts in controlling costs for complex construction projects like this?

Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally considered effective in controlling costs for projects where the scope of work is well-defined and risks can be reasonably anticipated. For complex construction projects like utility upgrades, FFP shifts the cost risk to the contractor. If the contractor manages the project efficiently and encounters fewer unforeseen issues than anticipated, they can achieve a higher profit margin. Conversely, if significant unexpected problems arise, the contractor may incur losses unless contract modifications are negotiated. The effectiveness hinges on the thoroughness of the initial scope definition and the contractor's risk management capabilities. For the government, FFP provides budget certainty, assuming the initial scope is accurate.

What is the historical spending trend for Visiting Quarters & Utilities upgrades within the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for Visiting Quarters & Utilities upgrades within the Department of the Navy requires access to comprehensive historical contract data. This specific contract, awarded in 2007 for approximately $47 million, represents a significant investment in infrastructure. Trends would likely show cyclical investment based on facility age, modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. Factors such as increased focus on habitability standards, energy efficiency mandates, and aging infrastructure across naval installations would influence spending levels over time. Without broader data, it's difficult to determine if this contract was part of a larger trend or an isolated major upgrade.

What does the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' NAICS code imply about this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction,' indicates that the primary nature of this contract involves the construction or renovation of buildings intended for commercial or institutional use, rather than residential, industrial, or heavy civil engineering projects. For this Department of Defense contract, it specifically points to the construction or significant upgrade of facilities like barracks, administrative buildings, or support structures that serve the institutional needs of the military base. This classification helps in understanding the type of construction services required and allows for comparison with other similar projects within the broader construction industry.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N4008007R0151

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rooney Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 107125957)

Address: 8550 ARLINGTON BLVD STE 204, FAIRFAX, VA, 22031

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $46,991,610

Exercised Options: $46,991,610

Current Obligation: $46,991,610

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline