DoD's $104M contract for lab construction awarded to Manhattan Construction Company

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $104,041,756 ($104.0M)

Contractor: Manhattan Construction Company LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-11-02

End Date: 2025-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,920 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF P275 ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAB, NRL, WASHINGTON, DC

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20375

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $104.0 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF P275 ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAB, NRL, WASHINGTON, DC Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the scale and complexity of institutional construction. 2. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, typical for large-scale construction projects with fixed-price terms. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Navy's research and development infrastructure. 5. Sector positioning is within commercial and institutional building construction, a mature industry.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $104 million for a definitive contract is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional or laboratory construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the price was competitive. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar projects, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

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 two bids suggests a degree of competition, though the exact number of interested parties and the rigor of the evaluation process are not detailed. Full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process for this contract likely resulted in a more cost-effective outcome for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, gaining enhanced research facilities. The contract delivers construction services for a science and technology laboratory. The geographic impact is localized to Washington, D.C., specifically the District of Columbia. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction labor and related trades during the project's duration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for construction delays impacting research timelines.
Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price terms.
Ensuring compliance with stringent environmental and safety regulations during construction.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Experienced contractor likely possesses the expertise for complex construction.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the U.S. economy. The market for specialized facilities like defense laboratories is often characterized by a smaller pool of highly qualified contractors. Spending benchmarks for similar large-scale government construction projects can vary widely based on location, complexity, and specific requirements. The $104 million value places this project in the upper tier of institutional construction contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses explicitly stated in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor engages small businesses as subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

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 contract terms, particularly the firm fixed-price structure. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Naval Research Laboratory Construction Projects
Department of Defense Research Facility Modernization
Federal Institutional Building Contracts
Large-Scale Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Risk of project delays impacting research timelines.
Ensuring compliance with stringent environmental and safety regulations.
Contractor performance and quality control over an extended duration.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $104.0 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC. IGF::OT::IGF P275 ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAB, NRL, WASHINGTON, DC

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 $104.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-11-02. End: 2025-10-31.

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

Manhattan Construction Company has a history of performing large-scale construction projects, including those for government entities. While specific details on their past performance exclusively with the Department of Defense are not provided in this data snippet, their selection for a $104 million project suggests they have met the necessary qualifications and demonstrated capability. A deeper dive into their contract history with DoD agencies would reveal the types of projects completed, their performance ratings, and any past issues or successes. This would provide crucial context for assessing their reliability and expertise on this specific laboratory construction contract.

How does the awarded price compare to similar laboratory construction projects?

Benchmarking the $104 million award against similar laboratory construction projects is essential for a comprehensive value assessment. Factors such as square footage, specialized equipment installation, site complexity, and geographic location significantly influence costs. Without access to a database of comparable projects with detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively state if this price is competitive. However, the firm fixed-price contract structure implies that the contractor has factored in risks and overhead, and the full and open competition suggests a market-driven price was sought. Further analysis would require comparing cost per square foot or cost per specialized feature against industry standards for institutional and R&D facilities.

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

The primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract, despite shifting cost escalation to the contractor, include potential for scope creep if change orders are not managed rigorously, unforeseen site conditions (e.g., hazardous materials, unexpected subsurface issues) that could lead to disputes or claims, and contractor performance issues (delays, quality defects). While the government is protected from direct cost increases beyond the fixed price, delays can impact operational readiness and research timelines. Ensuring robust contract administration, clear specifications, and proactive risk management by the contracting officer are crucial to mitigate these potential issues.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for large construction contracts like this?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value in large federal construction contracts. It maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. For this $104 million contract, the two bids received indicate that competition occurred, likely leading to a more favorable price than a sole-source award. However, the effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation, the fairness of the evaluation criteria, and the government's ability to accurately define its needs. A robust competition, even with only a few bidders, can still yield significant value if well-executed.

What is the historical spending trend for similar construction projects at the Naval Research Laboratory?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar construction projects at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) would provide valuable context for this $104 million contract. Understanding past investments in facility upgrades, new construction, and modernization efforts can reveal patterns in project scale, cost escalation, and contractor performance. If NRL has a history of undertaking large-scale projects, this contract might represent a continuation of a strategic investment plan. Conversely, if this is an unusually large or frequent expenditure, it might warrant further investigation into the specific needs driving the investment. Without historical data, it's difficult to assess if this contract aligns with established spending patterns.

What are the implications of the contract duration (2920 days) on project management and cost?

A contract duration of 2920 days (approximately 8 years) for a construction project of this magnitude implies a long-term, potentially phased, or complex build-out. Such extended timelines can introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price), evolving technological requirements for the lab, and potential contractor resource allocation challenges. Effective project management is critical to ensure milestones are met, quality is maintained, and the project stays within the defined scope and budget. The government must maintain vigilant oversight throughout this extended period to ensure the contractor remains on track and that the final facility meets its intended purpose upon completion.

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: N4008016R0452

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rooney Holdings, Inc.

Address: 4075 WILSON BLVD STE 650, ARLINGTON, VA, 22203

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $129,793,327

Exercised Options: $125,359,327

Current Obligation: $104,041,756

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline