DoD's $85.6M USAWC General Instruction Building contract awarded to Manhattan Construction Company LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $85,627,728 ($85.6M)

Contractor: Manhattan Construction Company LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-03-06

End Date: 2023-10-30

Contract Duration: 1,333 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: USAWC GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING

Place of Performance

Location: CARLISLE, CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYLVANIA, 17013

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $85.6 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC for work described as: USAWC GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the fixed-price nature of the contract and the duration. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long performance period potentially introducing cost escalation risks. 4. Performance context is within the construction sector, a field with established cost benchmarks. 5. Sector positioning is within defense construction, a specialized area with unique requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $85.6 million for a large construction project is within a reasonable range for a definitive contract of this scope. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the majority of the cost risk. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional building projects within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value assessment, but initial indications suggest a fair price point given the project's complexity and duration.

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 bids. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. This broad competition is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more cost-effective outcomes for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for construction projects like this helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel who will utilize the new facility. The contract delivers a new general instruction building, crucial for operational and administrative functions. The geographic impact is localized to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where the USAWC is located. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, and project managers in the Pennsylvania region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (1333 days) increases the risk of unforeseen cost increases due to market fluctuations or scope creep.
Firm Fixed Price contracts can sometimes lead to contractors cutting corners on quality if not adequately overseen, though this is a risk to be managed.
Dependence on a single large contractor for a significant project requires robust oversight to ensure timely completion and adherence to specifications.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Firm Fixed Price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially protecting the government from budget overruns.
The contract has a defined end date, providing a clear timeline for project completion.
The project is for a critical infrastructure need (instruction building) for the USAWC.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly for large institutional and government facilities, is characterized by significant project values and specialized expertise. This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sub-sector. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar-sized military or educational facilities can range widely based on location, complexity, and specific requirements. The market for large federal construction projects is often competitive, with established players like Manhattan Construction Company LLC.

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 means that opportunities for small businesses would likely be through direct subcontracting by the prime contractor, Manhattan Construction Company LLC, rather than through a formal set-aside program. The impact on the small business ecosystem depends on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this definitive contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring adherence to specifications and deadlines. 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

Military Construction
Federal Building Construction
Department of Defense Facilities
Institutional Building Projects
Large Scale Construction Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation.
Potential for quality issues if contractor faces financial pressure on FFP contract.
Requires robust government oversight due to project scale and duration.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $85.6 million to MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC. USAWC GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING

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 Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $85.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-03-06. End: 2023-10-30.

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

Manhattan Construction Company LLC has a history of securing contracts with the Department of Defense, as evidenced by this $85.6 million award. While this specific data point doesn't detail their entire DoD portfolio, their ability to win a large, competitively bid project suggests a proven capacity to meet DoD requirements. Further analysis would involve examining their past performance on similar projects, including on-time delivery, budget adherence, and quality of work, as well as any past performance evaluations or disputes with the DoD or other federal agencies. Their experience in large-scale institutional construction is a positive indicator for this project's success.

How does the cost per square foot of this building compare to similar federal construction projects?

The provided data does not include the square footage of the USAWC General Instruction Building, which is essential for calculating a cost per square foot metric. Without this crucial piece of information, a direct comparison to similar federal construction projects is not possible. To perform this analysis, one would need to obtain the building's specifications, including its total area. Once available, this figure could be benchmarked against average costs per square foot for institutional or military buildings of comparable size and complexity, considering regional construction cost variations and specific design requirements.

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

The primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for a long-duration project like this (1333 days) primarily revolve around potential cost escalation for the contractor and the risk of scope creep. While FFP shifts cost risk to the contractor, unforeseen market fluctuations in material prices, labor costs, or regulatory changes over a multi-year period can significantly impact the contractor's profitability, potentially leading to disputes or quality compromises if not managed proactively. For the government, the risk is ensuring that the fixed price remains competitive throughout the project lifecycle and that the contractor maintains quality standards despite potential pressures. Robust contract administration and clear change order processes are critical.

How effective has the 'full and open competition' process been in securing competitive pricing for similar DoD construction projects?

The 'full and open competition' process is generally considered the most effective method for the government to achieve competitive pricing in construction projects. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving multiple competitive proposals. Data from the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense often shows that competitively solicited contracts, especially those with a sufficient number of bids (like the 6 bidders in this case), tend to result in lower prices compared to sole-source or limited competition awards. However, effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation, the evaluation criteria, and the government's ability to accurately define project requirements to avoid ambiguity that could stifle competition or lead to disputes.

What is the historical spending trend for construction projects at the US Army War College (USAWC)?

The provided data focuses solely on this single $85.6 million contract for the USAWC General Instruction Building. It does not offer historical spending trends for construction projects at the US Army War College. To analyze historical spending, one would need to access procurement data over several fiscal years, identifying all construction-related contracts awarded to or for the USAWC. This would involve searching databases like FPDS or agency-specific procurement portals for relevant contract actions, filtering by the USAWC as the recipient activity and construction as the service category. Such an analysis would reveal patterns in spending, types of projects undertaken, and average contract values over time.

Are there any specific performance metrics or KPIs tied to this contract beyond project completion?

The provided data summary does not explicitly detail specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance metrics beyond the fundamental requirement of completing the General Instruction Building according to the contract's specifications, schedule, and budget. Standard government construction contracts typically include clauses related to quality control, safety compliance, timely progress reporting, and adherence to environmental regulations. Performance evaluations, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, would capture the contractor's adherence to these implicit and explicit requirements. Specific KPIs, if any, would likely be detailed within the contract's statement of work or performance clauses, focusing on milestones, quality benchmarks, or safety incident rates.

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: W912DR19R0018

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rooney Holdings, Inc.

Address: 3330 WASHINGTON BLVD STE 300, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $97,131,225

Exercised Options: $88,123,225

Current Obligation: $85,627,728

Actual Outlays: $1,525,500

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline