DoD's $53.7M Barracks Construction Contract Awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $53,656,744 ($53.7M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-09-16
End Date: 2011-12-30
Contract Duration: 835 days
Daily Burn Rate: $64.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCT WT BARRACKS
Place of Performance
Location: TACOMA, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $53.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCT WT BARRACKS Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in military infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Project duration of 835 days indicates a substantial construction timeline. 5. Location in Washington state points to specific regional military needs. 6. The contract falls under the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract requires comparison to similar military construction projects. Without specific cost breakdowns or detailed scope, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the government sought cost certainty, but the final price reflects market conditions at the time of award. The raw dollar amount is substantial, indicating a large-scale project.
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 5 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition, which typically aids in price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government. However, the specific number of bidders doesn't guarantee the most competitive outcome without knowing the quality and scope of the proposals.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and encourage innovation among contractors, leading to better value.
Public Impact
Service members stationed in Washington state will benefit from improved living quarters. The construction project will deliver new barracks facilities, enhancing quality of life. The geographic impact is localized to the military installation in Washington. The project will likely create numerous jobs in the construction sector in the local area. This investment supports the Department of the Army's infrastructure modernization efforts.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite fixed-price contract.
- Delays in construction could impact soldier readiness and housing availability.
- Quality of construction must be rigorously monitored to ensure long-term durability.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
- Award to an established contractor like M. A. Mortenson Company may indicate a track record of successful project completion.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for military construction is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and upgrade aging facilities and build new infrastructure to support evolving defense needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale barracks or facility construction projects awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting requirements mandated by a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the project, contributing to the broader small business ecosystem. Analysis of subcontracting plans would be necessary to determine the extent of small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) would be in place to monitor performance, schedule, and quality of construction. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction may be involved if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
- Department of Defense Construction Projects
- Barracks Modernization Programs
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays impacting soldier housing.
- Risk of cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
- Need for stringent quality control to ensure long-term durability.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, military-infrastructure, barracks, washington, large-contract, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $53.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. CONSTRUCT WT BARRACKS
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 $53.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-09-16. End: 2011-12-30.
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 and other federal agencies. Their portfolio often includes large-scale construction projects, such as educational facilities, healthcare buildings, and government installations. A detailed review of their past performance ratings, any past performance issues, and the types of projects they have successfully completed for the DoD would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability for this specific barracks construction contract. Their experience with similar firm-fixed-price, large-scale construction projects is a key indicator of their suitability.
How does the awarded price compare to similar barracks construction projects?
To benchmark the value, we would need to compare the awarded price of $53.7 million against similar barracks construction projects in terms of size, scope, and location. Factors such as square footage, number of beds, specific amenities, and prevailing construction costs in Washington state at the time of award are crucial. Without access to a database of comparable projects with detailed cost breakdowns, a precise comparison is difficult. However, the number of bids received (5) suggests that the price was competitive within the market at the time of award.
What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract?
The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, while beneficial for cost certainty, lies in potential contractor performance issues. If M. A. Mortenson Company encounters unforeseen challenges (e.g., material cost escalations beyond initial estimates, labor shortages, or site conditions), they bear the financial burden, which could incentivize cutting corners on quality or schedule adherence. Rigorous oversight and quality assurance are critical to mitigate these risks and ensure the project is completed to specification and on time.
How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts?
Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction contracts. It maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The requirement for multiple bids allows the government to select the offer that represents the best overall value, considering price, technical approach, and past performance. The presence of 5 bids in this case suggests that the competition was reasonably robust, likely contributing to a more favorable outcome for the government compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
What is the historical spending pattern for barracks construction by the Department of the Army?
Historical spending on barracks construction by the Department of the Army is substantial, reflecting the continuous need to house military personnel. This spending fluctuates based on military readiness requirements, troop levels, aging infrastructure, and congressional appropriations. Analyzing past budgets and contract awards for barracks construction over the last decade would reveal trends in project scale, average costs per square foot or per bed, and the types of contractors most frequently awarded these projects. This contract represents a portion of that ongoing investment in military housing infrastructure.
What are the implications of the 835-day duration for project management and soldier impact?
The 835-day duration (approximately 2.3 years) for this barracks construction project indicates a significant undertaking. This extended timeline necessitates robust project management to ensure adherence to schedule and budget. For soldiers, this duration means that the need for housing will persist for the project's lifespan, potentially requiring temporary housing solutions or continued use of older facilities. Delays beyond this schedule could exacerbate housing shortages or impact troop morale and readiness, underscoring the importance of effective contractor performance and government oversight throughout the project lifecycle.
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: W9126G07R0121
Offers Received: 5
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, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $53,656,744
Exercised Options: $53,656,744
Current Obligation: $53,656,744
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9126G08D0048
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-09-16
Current End Date: 2011-12-30
Potential End Date: 2011-12-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-10-17
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)