DoD's $19.6M construction contract for Munitions/EOD facilities awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $19,626,685 ($19.6M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-09-20
End Date: 2011-09-25
Contract Duration: 735 days
Daily Burn Rate: $26.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: MUNITION/EOD, LEE
Place of Performance
Location: FORT LEE, PETERSBURG CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23801
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $19.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: MUNITION/EOD, LEE Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. The duration of 735 days indicates a significant construction project. 4. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 points to commercial and institutional building construction. 6. The contract was a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar vehicle.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparable project data. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the initial bid was deemed acceptable by the Army. The total award amount of $19.6 million for a construction project of this duration (735 days) appears within a reasonable range for large-scale institutional building, but a precise value-for-money assessment would require detailed cost analysis against similar DoD construction projects.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 4 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this project. While more than one bidder participated, the exact number of potential bidders and the intensity of the competition are not detailed. A higher number of bids typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging competitive pricing and potentially leading to cost savings compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army, who will receive enhanced facilities for Munitions and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). The services delivered include the construction of specialized buildings designed to support critical military operations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Virginia, where the construction project was located. The project likely created temporary employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades in the Virginia area.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detailed cost breakdown makes it difficult to assess the efficiency of resource allocation.
- The specific nature of Munitions/EOD facilities may involve specialized requirements that could increase costs.
- Limited information on the competitive landscape beyond the number of bids received.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible bidding process.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
- The project addresses critical infrastructure needs for the Department of Defense.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS 236220). This sector is a significant part of the broader construction industry, encompassing the building of non-residential structures like government facilities, educational institutions, and healthcare buildings. Federal spending in this sector is substantial, driven by the need for infrastructure maintenance, upgrades, and new construction across various agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of facilities.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically mandated for small businesses through a set-aside program for this particular award. The prime contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The absence of a small business set-aside means the primary competition was open to all eligible firms, regardless of size.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, allowing for review of basic contract details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance or closeout.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts
- Army Corps of Engineers Projects
- Munitions Storage Facilities
- Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facilities
- Federal Building Construction
- Infrastructure Modernization Programs
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays due to construction complexities.
- Risk of cost escalation if unforeseen site conditions arise (though contractor bears primary risk in FFP).
- Ensuring compliance with stringent safety and environmental regulations for ordnance facilities.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, virginia, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, munitions-eod, delivery-order, large-project
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $19.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. MUNITION/EOD, LEE
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $19.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-09-20. End: 2011-09-25.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a history of securing contracts with the Department of Defense, as evidenced by this award. To fully assess their track record, a deeper dive into their past performance ratings, any past disputes or claims, and the total value of contracts previously awarded by DoD would be necessary. Analyzing their success rate in winning bids and their performance on similar large-scale construction projects for military clients would provide further insight into their reliability and capability in executing complex federal projects.
How does the $19.6 million award compare to similar Munitions/EOD facility construction projects?
Direct comparison of the $19.6 million award for this specific Munitions/EOD facility construction project is difficult without access to a comprehensive database of similar projects with detailed cost breakdowns and scope. Factors such as facility size, specific security requirements, geographic location (affecting labor and material costs), and the complexity of the ordnance handling systems significantly influence project costs. However, for large-scale institutional or specialized government facility construction, $19.6 million represents a substantial investment, suggesting a project of considerable scope and complexity.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of construction contract?
Key risks for this firm fixed-price construction contract include potential cost overruns if the contractor underestimated material, labor, or specialized equipment needs, although the risk is primarily on the contractor. Schedule delays due to unforeseen site conditions, weather, or supply chain disruptions are also significant risks. For Munitions/EOD facilities, specific risks involve stringent safety protocols, specialized construction techniques, and potential regulatory compliance challenges related to ordnance handling and storage, which could impact cost and schedule if not managed meticulously.
How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition' strategy in ensuring value for taxpayer money in construction?
Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective strategy for ensuring value for taxpayer money in federal contracting, including construction. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The requirement for multiple bids, as indicated by the 4 bids received in this case, provides a basis for price discovery and allows the government to select the offer that represents the best value, considering both price and technical factors. However, the effectiveness is contingent on the clarity of the solicitation and the government's ability to evaluate proposals rigorously.
What is the historical spending trend for Munitions/EOD facility construction by the Department of the Army?
Analyzing historical spending trends for Munitions/EOD facility construction by the Department of the Army requires access to extensive historical contract data. Such analysis would involve identifying all contracts related to these facility types over several fiscal years, aggregating their values, and examining patterns in award amounts, contract types, and competition levels. Trends might reveal periods of increased investment driven by modernization efforts, changes in operational requirements, or shifts in budget allocations. Without specific historical data, it's impossible to determine if this $19.6 million award represents an increase, decrease, or average spending for such projects.
What are the implications of the contract being a 'Delivery Order'?
The designation of this award as a 'Delivery Order' (AW: DELIVERY ORDER) implies that it was issued under a pre-existing contract vehicle, such as an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, a blanket purchase agreement, or a similar master agreement. This approach allows agencies to procure goods or services incrementally as needed, often with pre-negotiated terms and pricing. For taxpayers, this can streamline the procurement process and potentially achieve better pricing through bulk commitments. However, it also means that the competition and value assessment might have occurred at the master contract level, with the delivery order being a specific task order against it.
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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Solicitation ID: W9123607R0001
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: M. a. Mortenson Companies, Inc. (UEI: 130731797)
Address: 700 MEADOW LN N, MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 55422
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $20,658,955
Exercised Options: $20,352,580
Current Obligation: $19,626,685
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9123608D0006
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-09-20
Current End Date: 2011-09-25
Potential End Date: 2011-09-25 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-03-28
More Contracts from M. a. Mortenson Company
- TAS::47 4543::TAS Modernization of the Byron G. Rogers Federal Office Building and the Byron G. Rogers Federal Courthouse Window Replacement in Denver, CO — $160.4M (General Services Administration)
- Construction Contract 2 for the Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (fastc) in Blackstone, VA. Includes an Indoor Firing Range, Indoor/Outdoor Tactical Range, Tactical Training Building, Office and Classroom Building, Driving Tracks, Mock Urban Driving Track and Mock Embassy — $154.6M (General Services Administration)
- Clin 0001 Base BID Repair EHW 1 Phase 2 NSB Kings BAY GA — $154.6M (Department of Defense)
- Design-Build-Bridging Construction Services for the Modernization of the U.S. National Poultry Research Center (usnprc), Seprl Campus in Athens, GA This IS a Two-Phase Design-Build Acquisition. ONE Solicitation Covers Both Phases. Phase I IS the Pre-Selection Phase in Which the Government Will "shortlist" Maximum of (4) of the Most Highly Qualified Offerors. Only Those Firms Selected in Phase I Will BE Allowed to Continue to the Phase II. Detailed Design Criteria Will Then BE Added by Amendment to the Solicitation to Start the Phase II Stage of the Request for Proposals. Each Firm Selected for Participation in Phase II Will Then Submit a Design-Build Technical Proposal, the Remainder of the Performance Capability Proposal and Price Proposal. Igf::ot::igf — $149.6M (Department of Agriculture)
- Ibct — $141.3M (Department of Defense)
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)