Department of Defense awarded $88.3M for architectural services, with a significant portion allocated to Virginia

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $88,285,577 ($88.3M)

Contractor: Hitt Contracting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-17

End Date: 2012-07-09

Contract Duration: 661 days

Daily Burn Rate: $133.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: P001V CRYSTAL PARK MOVE

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22202

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $88.3 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC. for work described as: P001V CRYSTAL PARK MOVE Key points: 1. The contract's value of $88.3M for architectural services indicates a substantial investment in facility design and planning. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract were robust, suggesting a healthy market for architectural services within the defense sector. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that cost risks are largely borne by the contractor, potentially leading to more predictable project expenses. 4. The duration of 661 days points to a complex and lengthy project requiring extensive architectural expertise. 5. The contract's focus on architectural services aligns with broader government needs for infrastructure development and maintenance. 6. The award to HITT CONTRACTING, INC. represents a significant allocation of resources to a single prime contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $88.3M for architectural services appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale government projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale architectural contracts for federal facilities would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure generally offers good cost control for the government, provided the scope is well-defined. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed scope of work, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging, but the competitive nature of the award suggests market-driven pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 17 bidders, the level of competition was high, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. This broad competition suggests that the government received a wide range of proposals and was able to select the best value offering. The significant number of bidders implies a mature market for these services and a strong incentive for contractors to offer competitive terms.

Taxpayer Impact: The high level of competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely resulted in a more favorable price than a sole-source or limited competition award. It ensures that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by leveraging market forces to secure the best possible deal.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, receiving essential architectural planning and design services for their facilities. The services delivered include architectural design, planning, and potentially related engineering or consulting services crucial for military infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Virginia, where the services are likely being applied to specific naval installations or facilities. The contract supports a workforce of architects, designers, engineers, and support staff within the contracting firm and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in long-duration, firm-fixed-price contracts if not meticulously managed.
Reliance on a single prime contractor for a large sum could pose risks if performance issues arise.
The firm-fixed-price nature might disincentivize contractor innovation if not structured with appropriate incentives.
Ensuring the architectural designs meet evolving technological and security requirements over the project lifecycle.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust and competitive bidding process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The large number of bidders (17) suggests strong market interest and potential for high-quality service selection.
The contract duration (661 days) implies a significant and potentially complex project, allowing for thorough planning and execution.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the broader construction and engineering industry, supporting both public and private infrastructure development. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to maintain, modernize, and expand government facilities. This contract, valued at $88.3M, represents a significant investment within this sector, likely contributing to the modernization or expansion of naval facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks for large federal architectural projects can vary widely based on project complexity, location, and specific service requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically mandated for small businesses through a set-aside program for this particular award. However, the prime contractor, HITT CONTRACTING, INC., may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the work, depending on their own subcontracting strategies and the nature of the services required. The absence of a small business set-aside means the primary competition was open to all eligible firms, regardless of size.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified architectural services within the agreed-upon price and schedule. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance or closeout.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Management
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Architectural and Engineering Services for Federal Buildings
Military Construction Projects
Government Real Property Management

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Firm Fixed Price Risk
Scope Definition
Contractor Performance

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $88.3 million to HITT CONTRACTING, INC.. P001V CRYSTAL PARK MOVE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HITT CONTRACTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $88.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-17. End: 2012-07-09.

What is the track record of HITT CONTRACTING, INC. with the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Navy?

HITT CONTRACTING, INC. has a significant history of performing work for the Department of Defense and its various branches, including the Department of the Navy. Their portfolio often includes large-scale construction and renovation projects. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts, their on-time and on-budget delivery rates, and any past performance issues or awards would provide crucial context. For this specific $88.3M architectural services contract, understanding their prior experience with naval facilities in Virginia would be particularly relevant. A review of their contract history would reveal the volume and types of contracts they have secured, indicating their capacity and expertise in handling projects of this magnitude and complexity for the Navy.

How does the $88.3M contract value compare to typical spending on architectural services for similar naval facilities?

The $88.3M contract value for architectural services is substantial and suggests a large-scale project, potentially involving master planning, design development, and construction administration for significant naval infrastructure. To benchmark this value, one would compare it to the total contract values of other architectural services contracts awarded by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) or other Department of Defense entities for comparable projects (e.g., new construction, major renovations, campus-wide planning). Factors such as the specific type of facility (e.g., barracks, command centers, shipyards), the complexity of the design requirements, and the geographic location (which influences labor and material costs) are critical for a fair comparison. Without access to detailed project scopes and specific benchmarks, it's difficult to definitively state if $88.3M represents high or low spending, but its magnitude indicates a project of considerable scope and importance.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this size and duration?

The primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of this magnitude ($88.3M) and duration (661 days) for architectural services revolve around scope definition and management. For the government, the risk lies in the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if the initial price was too low or if unforeseen issues arise. Conversely, if the scope is not meticulously defined and managed, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which could lead to disputes or performance issues. Contractor performance risk is also significant; a large, complex project requires robust project management, skilled personnel, and financial stability from the prime contractor. Ensuring the contractor has adequate bonding and insurance is crucial. Finally, the long duration increases the risk of changes in requirements, technology, or regulations, necessitating careful change order management.

What does the high number of bidders (17) imply about the effectiveness of the full and open competition process for this contract?

The participation of 17 bidders in a full and open competition for this $88.3M architectural services contract strongly suggests that the solicitation process was effective in attracting a wide range of qualified firms. This high level of interest indicates that the contract requirements were clearly defined, the opportunity was perceived as valuable, and the barriers to entry for potential bidders were appropriately managed. For taxpayers, this robust competition is a positive sign, as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a greater likelihood that the government will receive the best value proposition. It also fosters a healthy market environment, encouraging multiple firms to maintain the capabilities necessary to compete for future federal contracts.

How has federal spending on architectural services evolved over the past 5-10 years, and where does this contract fit?

Federal spending on architectural services has generally fluctuated based on overall government budgets, infrastructure priorities, and specific agency needs. Historically, agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are significant consumers of these services for facility design, renovation, and construction. Spending often increases during periods of military expansion, infrastructure investment initiatives, or when addressing aging federal building stock. This $88.3M contract for the Department of the Navy fits within the broader trend of DoD investment in its facilities. Its size suggests it's a major project, potentially part of a larger modernization effort or a significant new construction undertaking, rather than routine maintenance or small-scale design work. Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar naval architectural contracts would place this award in context.

What are the potential workforce implications of a contract of this size and scope?

A contract valued at $88.3M for architectural services implies a significant demand for skilled professionals. The prime contractor, HITT CONTRACTING, INC., will likely need to allocate a substantial team of architects, project managers, designers, drafters, and potentially specialized consultants (e.g., structural, mechanical, electrical engineers) to execute the work. This could involve hiring new personnel or reallocating existing staff. Furthermore, depending on the project's specifics, there may be opportunities for small businesses and specialized firms to act as subcontractors for specific design elements or related services. The duration of the contract (661 days) suggests sustained employment for the project team over an extended period, contributing to workforce stability within the A/E industry.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: N4008010R0007

Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2900 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $88,285,577

Exercised Options: $88,285,577

Current Obligation: $88,285,577

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline