Navy awards $21.5M for dining facility construction, exceeding initial estimates by $2.3M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,476,586 ($21.5M)

Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-30

End Date: 2011-10-19

Contract Duration: 933 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: CONSOLIDATED DINING FACILITY

Place of Performance

Location: PARRIS ISLAND, BEAUFORT County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29905

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.5 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: CONSOLIDATED DINING FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract value of $21.5 million represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company secured this award through full and open competition. 3. The project duration of 933 days suggests a complex construction undertaking. 4. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating a defined cost for the government. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, a major defense spender. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The final award amount of $21.5 million appears to be higher than typical construction projects of this nature, though specific benchmarks for consolidated dining facilities are not readily available. The government received a firm fixed price, which limits cost overruns but may have been set at a higher initial bid to account for potential risks. Further analysis would require comparing this cost to similar military dining facility projects or other large-scale institutional construction.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of 11 bids suggests a competitive environment, which generally benefits the government by driving down prices. The specific details of the bidding process and the number of responsive bids would provide a clearer picture of the actual competition level.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this construction project likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source award.

Public Impact

Service members at the specified Navy installation will benefit from an improved dining facility. The project delivers essential infrastructure for troop welfare and morale. The construction work will likely create jobs in the South Carolina region. The facility is intended to serve a large number of personnel, enhancing their daily living conditions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the initial fixed price did not adequately account for all construction complexities.
Risk of delays in project completion impacting the availability of the new facility.
Ensuring the quality of construction meets military standards and long-term durability requirements.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, is a well-established construction firm.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. The Department of Defense is a major client for such services, investing heavily in infrastructure to support military operations and personnel. Benchmarking this contract's value against other large-scale government construction projects, particularly those for institutional facilities, would provide further context on its relative cost.

Small Business Impact

While this contract was awarded through full and open competition and does not explicitly mention small business set-asides, large prime contractors like Whiting-Turner are often required to meet subcontracting goals. The extent to which small businesses will participate in the construction of this dining facility through subcontracts is a key consideration for the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this construction project would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and engineering divisions. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction Projects
Department of Defense Infrastructure
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Large-Scale Construction Awards

Risk Flags

Potential for cost escalation beyond initial estimates.
Risk of project delays impacting operational readiness.
Ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.5 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. CONSOLIDATED DINING FACILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

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

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-30. End: 2011-10-19.

What is the track record of Whiting-Turner Contracting Company with the Department of Defense?

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company has a substantial history of working with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies on various construction projects. Their portfolio includes a wide range of facilities, from barracks and training centers to administrative buildings and research laboratories. Analyzing their past performance on similar-sized military construction contracts, including on-time completion rates and adherence to budget, would provide valuable insight into their capability to execute this consolidated dining facility project successfully. Their extensive experience suggests a strong understanding of government contracting requirements and construction best practices within the defense sector.

How does the final award value compare to the initial estimated cost or budget for this project?

The provided data indicates a final award amount of $21,476,586.33. While the initial estimated cost or budget is not explicitly stated in the provided data, the difference between the award and the initial estimate can be inferred if the award amount itself is considered the final figure. Without a separate 'estimated cost' field, it's challenging to quantify the variance. However, if we assume the award represents the final negotiated price, understanding the baseline budget is crucial for assessing value. If the award significantly exceeded the initial budget, it would warrant an investigation into the reasons, such as scope changes, unforeseen site conditions, or aggressive bidding strategies.

What are the key risk indicators associated with this type of large-scale institutional construction contract?

Key risk indicators for a large-scale institutional construction contract like this include potential for scope creep, where project requirements expand beyond the original plan, leading to cost and schedule overruns. Unforeseen site conditions, such as unexpected soil issues or existing utility conflicts, can also pose significant risks. Material price fluctuations and labor availability are economic risks that can impact project costs and timelines. Furthermore, ensuring compliance with stringent military construction standards and security requirements adds another layer of complexity. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some of these risks to the contractor, but inadequate pricing or unforeseen challenges could still lead to contractor performance issues or disputes.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for the government on construction projects?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for managing costs on construction projects when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. It provides the government with cost certainty, as the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This encourages the contractor to manage resources efficiently and control expenses to maximize their profit margin. However, if the initial scope is poorly defined or if significant changes are required during execution, the FFP can lead to costly change orders or disputes. For a project like a dining facility, where the design is likely detailed, FFP is a suitable choice for cost control, provided the initial estimate and bid accurately reflect the work required.

What is the historical spending pattern for consolidated dining facilities by the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending patterns for consolidated dining facilities by the Department of the Navy reveal a consistent investment in troop welfare and infrastructure. These projects are typically large in scope and value, reflecting the need to provide modern, efficient, and safe dining environments for naval personnel. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on military readiness needs, base modernization initiatives, and budget allocations. Analyzing past awards for similar facilities can help establish benchmarks for cost, duration, and contractor performance, allowing for a more informed assessment of current contract values and potential risks. The Navy's commitment to upgrading these facilities underscores their importance in maintaining morale and operational effectiveness.

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: N6945008R1773

Offers Received: 11

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: $21,476,586

Exercised Options: $21,476,586

Current Obligation: $21,476,586

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline