W. G. Yates & Sons awarded $103M contract for Mississippi construction, highlighting significant defense infrastructure investment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $103,036,302 ($103.0M)

Contractor: W. G. Yates & Sons Construction Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-09

End Date: 2010-11-08

Contract Duration: 1,218 days

Daily Burn Rate: $84.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: BASIC PRICE FOR ITEM 0001

Place of Performance

Location: GULFPORT, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39501

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $103.0 million to W. G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for work described as: BASIC PRICE FOR ITEM 0001 Key points: 1. The contract's value suggests a substantial project, likely involving complex construction services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a broad market engagement, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts performance risk to the contractor, incentivizing efficient execution. 4. A duration of over 1200 days points to a long-term commitment and significant project scope. 5. The award to a single contractor suggests a focus on specialized capabilities or a consolidated approach. 6. The project's location in Mississippi may have implications for regional economic development and workforce utilization.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $103 million for commercial and institutional building construction is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale defense construction projects is necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract, coupled with full and open competition, generally suggests a reasonable price was negotiated, as the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. The awarded amount appears to be within the expected range for major construction endeavors of this scale.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The solicitation likely attracted multiple bidders, fostering a competitive environment that typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. The presence of three bidders, as indicated, suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this significant construction project.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the chances of securing the best possible price and quality for government projects. It ensures that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by leveraging market forces to identify the most capable and cost-effective contractor.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits through the acquisition of essential infrastructure, likely for military operations or support facilities. The services delivered include commercial and institutional building construction, contributing to the modernization or expansion of federal facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Mississippi, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy through construction activities. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for skilled trades, engineers, and project managers within the construction sector in Mississippi.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.
Ensuring timely completion within the 1218-day duration may pose a risk given the project's scale.
Quality control and adherence to specifications will be critical throughout the extended construction period.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract incentivizes the contractor to manage costs effectively and complete the project efficiently.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process, likely identifying a highly capable contractor.
The long duration allows for thorough planning and execution of complex construction tasks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as offices, educational facilities, and government buildings. Federal spending in this area is crucial for maintaining and upgrading government infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale federal construction contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or General Services Administration for similar types of facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not specify any small business set-aside. Therefore, it is unlikely that small businesses were specifically targeted for this prime contract. However, the prime contractor, W. G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the work, contributing to the small business ecosystem indirectly. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price and schedule. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific project-level oversight details may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Federal Building Construction
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts

Risk Flags

Long project duration increases exposure to market volatility.
Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly.
Dependence on contractor's long-term financial stability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $103.0 million to W. G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. BASIC PRICE FOR ITEM 0001

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is W. G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $103.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-09. End: 2010-11-08.

What is the historical spending pattern for W. G. Yates & Sons Construction Company with the Department of Defense?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of W. G. Yates & Sons Construction Company with the Department of Defense is crucial for understanding their track record and relationship with the agency. A review of past contracts would reveal the types of projects they have undertaken, their performance history, and the total value of contracts awarded. This information can help assess their experience in handling projects of similar scale and complexity, identify any recurring issues or successes, and provide context for the current $103 million award. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively characterize their past performance, but a significant award like this suggests a demonstrated capability and a positive past relationship with the DoD.

How does the awarded price of $103 million compare to similar large-scale construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy in the past five years?

To assess the value for money, the awarded price of $103 million needs to be benchmarked against similar large-scale construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy over the last five years. This comparison should consider factors such as project type (e.g., barracks, administrative facilities, industrial buildings), geographic location, contract duration, and complexity. If comparable projects were awarded at significantly lower or higher prices, it could indicate whether this contract represents a particularly good deal, a fair market price, or potentially an overpayment. The firm-fixed-price nature and full and open competition suggest a competitive negotiation, but external benchmarking is essential for a definitive value assessment.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and risk mitigation strategies associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract?

For a firm-fixed-price construction contract of this magnitude, key performance indicators (KPIs) would likely include adherence to the project schedule, quality of workmanship, compliance with safety regulations, and budget management (though the primary budget risk lies with the contractor). Risk mitigation strategies employed by the contractor would involve detailed project planning, robust supply chain management, securing appropriate insurance and bonding, employing experienced project managers and skilled labor, and implementing rigorous quality control processes. The government's oversight would focus on monitoring progress, ensuring compliance with contract specifications, and managing any government- Furnished information or property. The long duration necessitates proactive risk identification and management throughout the project lifecycle.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the local economy in Mississippi, considering job creation and small business subcontracting?

This $103 million construction contract is expected to have a significant positive impact on the local economy in Mississippi. The construction phase alone will likely create numerous jobs for skilled laborers, tradespeople, engineers, and project management professionals. Furthermore, the prime contractor, W. G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, may engage local suppliers for materials and equipment, further injecting capital into the regional economy. While the contract itself was awarded under full and open competition and doesn't specify a small business set-aside, there's potential for local small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of this subcontracting will determine the direct benefit to the small business ecosystem in Mississippi.

How does the duration of 1218 days (approximately 3.3 years) influence the risk profile and management approach for this construction project?

The extended duration of 1218 days significantly influences the risk profile and management approach for this construction project. Longer project timelines increase exposure to various risks, including potential fluctuations in material costs, labor availability, regulatory changes, and unforeseen site conditions. Effective risk management requires proactive planning, contingency budgeting, and adaptive strategies to address evolving challenges. The contractor must maintain a consistent focus on project momentum over an extended period, requiring strong leadership, effective communication, and robust quality control measures to ensure successful completion within the defined scope and price. The government's oversight will also need to be sustained and vigilant throughout this multi-year engagement.

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

Solicitation ID: N6945007R0754

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Yates Companies Inc (UEI: 017041232)

Address: ONE GULLY AVE, PHILADELPHIA, MS, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $103,036,302

Exercised Options: $103,036,302

Current Obligation: $103,036,302

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline