DoD's $24.5M Army Barracks Contract Awarded to Whiting-Turner Raises Competition Concerns
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $24,554,985 ($24.6M)
Contractor: Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2015-09-16
End Date: 2016-12-31
Contract Duration: 472 days
Daily Burn Rate: $52.0K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: FUNDING SUBCLIN ONLY IGF::OT::IGF
Place of Performance
Location: FORT GORDON, RICHMOND County, GEORGIA, 30905
State: Georgia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $24.6 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE for work described as: FUNDING SUBCLIN ONLY IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract value of $24.5 million falls within a moderate spending range for construction projects. 2. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a large, established firm, indicating significant competition in the general construction sector. 3. The lack of competition for this specific contract is a notable risk. 4. The sector is Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, a vital area for infrastructure development.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $24.5 million for barracks construction appears reasonable given the scope and duration. However, without specific benchmarks for similar projects in the same geographic region, a precise pricing assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers compared to a competitive process.
Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition may result in a higher price than if multiple bids were solicited, impacting taxpayer funds.
Public Impact
Taxpayers may have paid more due to the absence of competitive bidding. The Army received necessary barracks construction, fulfilling a critical operational need. The award to a single, large contractor might limit opportunities for smaller, specialized construction firms.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition
- Potential for overpayment due to sole-source award
Positive Signals
- Project completed within the specified timeframe
- Awarded to a reputable contractor
Sector Analysis
The Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector is robust, with significant government spending on infrastructure. Benchmarks for similar projects vary widely based on location, complexity, and materials used.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not competed, which likely excluded small businesses from bidding. There is no indication that small businesses were subcontracted.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded under the 'GA' status, suggesting it may have undergone some level of review. However, the lack of competition warrants further scrutiny regarding the justification for a sole-source award.
Related Government Programs
- Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Lack of competition
- Potential for inflated pricing
- Limited transparency in award process
- Missed opportunity for small business participation
Tags
commercial-and-institutional-building-co, department-of-defense, ga, definitive-contract, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $24.6 million to WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, THE. FUNDING SUBCLIN ONLY IGF::OT::IGF
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 Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $24.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2015-09-16. End: 2016-12-31.
What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative competitive strategies considered?
The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A sole-source award typically requires a strong justification, such as a unique capability or urgent need. Without further documentation, it's unclear if alternatives were explored or if the justification was robust enough to warrant bypassing competition, which is generally preferred for ensuring best value and fair pricing for the government.
How does the final cost of this barracks construction project compare to similar projects awarded competitively by the Department of the Army?
Direct comparison is challenging without detailed project specifications and regional cost indices. However, sole-source contracts inherently carry a higher risk of inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive pressure. A thorough post-award audit or benchmarking study against comparable competitive contracts would be necessary to definitively assess cost-effectiveness.
What measures were in place to ensure the quality and timely completion of the barracks construction, given the sole-source nature of the award?
While the data shows the contract was completed within its duration (472 days), the sole-source nature doesn't inherently preclude quality assurance. The Department of the Army would have likely employed contract oversight, inspections, and performance monitoring. However, the absence of competition means that the contractor's incentive to perform exceptionally might be less pronounced compared to a competitive scenario.
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: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: W912DR15R0042
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 300 E JOPPA RD, BALTIMORE, MD, 21286
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $24,554,985
Exercised Options: $24,554,985
Current Obligation: $24,554,985
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2015-09-16
Current End Date: 2016-12-31
Potential End Date: 2016-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-06-04
More Contracts from Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the
- - Building 10 E-Wing Renovation — $301.8M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Design-Build the Marine Corps Special Command(marsoc)complex, Camp Lejeune, NC — $257.8M (Department of Defense)
- Warrior Transition Unit — $227.9M (Department of Defense)
- Design-Build Projects P-1917 Cast Propellant MIX Facility, P-1920 Warhead Casing Operations Facility, P-1921 Motor Assembly Compound, Naval AIR Weapons Station (naws) China Lake, Ridgecrest, CA — $210.8M (Department of Defense)
- Hfrm Package 5 — $209.9M (Department of Defense)
View all Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, the federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)