Department of the Army awards $38.1M contract for South Side Cab Facilities, highlighting construction needs
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $38,137,545 ($38.1M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2007-12-21
End Date: 2009-06-30
Contract Duration: 557 days
Daily Burn Rate: $68.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: SOUTH SIDE CAB FACILITIES FY 08
Place of Performance
Location: FORT RILEY, GEARY County, KANSAS, 66442
State: Kansas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $38.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: SOUTH SIDE CAB FACILITIES FY 08 Key points: 1. The contract value of $38.1 million represents a significant investment in facility construction. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are assessed to understand pricing efficiency. 3. Risk indicators are evaluated based on contract type and duration. 4. Performance context is considered within the broader landscape of military construction projects. 5. The contract positions the Department of the Army within the commercial and institutional building construction sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $38.1 million for the South Side Cab Facilities appears to be a substantial investment. Benchmarking against similar construction projects within the Department of Defense or for comparable institutional buildings is crucial for a precise value assessment. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparisons to market rates for similar construction scopes, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents excellent value. The fixed-firm price suggests cost certainty for the government, but the overall value hinges on the quality and efficiency of the delivered facilities.
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 offers. The fact that it was competed openly suggests a robust bidding process. However, the provided data does not specify the number of bidders, which is essential for a complete understanding of the competition's intensity and its potential impact on price discovery. A higher number of bids typically leads to more competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and encourage innovation, leading to better value for public funds.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel who will utilize the new South Side Cab Facilities. The services delivered include the construction of commercial and institutional buildings. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the South Side Cab Facilities are being constructed, likely within Kansas based on the 'ST' and 'SN' fields. Workforce implications include job creation in the construction sector, potentially benefiting local and regional labor markets.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of specific details on the number of bidders limits the assessment of competitive pressure.
- Absence of per-unit cost data makes a granular value-for-money assessment challenging.
- The duration of the contract (557 days) could introduce risks related to material cost fluctuations or labor availability.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair and broad solicitation process.
- Firm fixed price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
- The contract is for essential facility construction, addressing a clear need for the Department of the Army.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. This sector encompasses the building of non-residential structures such as offices, educational facilities, healthcare buildings, and government installations. The market size for federal construction projects is substantial, driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, and expand government infrastructure. This specific contract for the Department of the Army aligns with federal spending trends aimed at modernizing military facilities and operational support structures.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract ('sb': false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities. The extent to which M. A. Mortenson Company, the prime contractor, engages small businesses as subcontractors will determine the contract's ripple effect on the small business ecosystem. Without a specific small business subcontracting goal, it's difficult to quantify this impact.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which places the onus on the contractor to deliver within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance or closeout.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts
- General Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to fixed-price nature and project duration.
- Risk of quality compromises if contractor faces financial pressure.
- Dependence on contractor's past performance and financial stability.
- Uncertainty regarding the number of bidders impacting price competitiveness.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, kansas, large-project, facility-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $38.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. SOUTH SIDE CAB FACILITIES FY 08
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 $38.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-12-21. End: 2009-06-30.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of the Army and similar construction projects?
M. A. Mortenson Company is a large, established construction firm with a significant history of undertaking complex projects, including those for government and military clients. Their track record with the Department of the Army would likely involve numerous past awards for various construction and renovation efforts. To assess their specific performance on this contract, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or claims, and their history of meeting schedule and budget requirements on similar-sized military construction projects. A review of their portfolio would reveal their experience in building facilities comparable to the South Side Cab Facilities, providing insight into their capability and reliability as a contractor for this type of work.
How does the awarded amount of $38.1 million compare to the estimated cost or budget for the South Side Cab Facilities project?
The provided data indicates the awarded amount is $38,137,545. However, it does not include information about the government's estimate or the initial budget allocated for the South Side Cab Facilities project. To assess value for money, a comparison between the awarded price and the government's estimate is crucial. If the award was significantly below the estimate, it could indicate strong competition or effective negotiation. Conversely, if the award was at or above the estimate, further scrutiny might be needed to ensure the price reflects fair market value. Without the estimated cost, it's challenging to determine if the government secured a favorable price or if the project came in as expected.
What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a construction project of this magnitude and duration?
For a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract of $38.1 million and a duration of 557 days (approximately 1.5 years), the primary risk lies with the contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company. They bear the responsibility for any cost overruns that may occur due to unforeseen circumstances, such as escalating material prices, labor shortages, or unexpected site conditions. While FFP provides cost certainty for the government, it can incentivize contractors to cut corners on quality or safety if margins become tight, although quality is typically managed through contract specifications and inspections. The government's risk is primarily related to potential contractor default or performance issues, which could lead to delays and the need for contract termination and re-competition.
What specific types of 'Cab Facilities' are being constructed, and what is their operational importance to the Department of the Army?
The term 'Cab Facilities' in this context likely refers to facilities that house or support the Army's vehicular fleet, specifically 'cabs' which could denote transportation units, specialized vehicles, or personnel carriers. These facilities are crucial for the operational readiness and maintenance of the Army's transportation assets. They would typically include features such as vehicle storage bays, maintenance workshops, parts storage, administrative offices, and potentially areas for driver support. The operational importance stems from ensuring that the Army's mobility and logistics capabilities are maintained, repaired, and readily available for deployment and daily operations, directly impacting mission effectiveness.
How does the $38.1 million spending on this single contract compare to the Army's overall annual spending on construction and facilities maintenance?
The $38.1 million awarded for the South Side Cab Facilities represents a significant, but likely singular, investment within the Department of the Army's vast construction and facilities budget. The Army's annual spending on construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) often runs into billions of dollars across numerous projects globally. This single contract, while substantial, would be a fraction of the total annual outlay. To contextualize its significance, one would need to compare it against the Army's total facilities budget for the relevant fiscal years (FY08 for the award date) and potentially against the average cost of similar-sized construction projects undertaken by the Army annually. It highlights a specific need for vehicular support facilities in a particular location.
What is the significance of the contract award being a 'Delivery Order' (aw: DELIVERY ORDER) rather than a new contract?
The notation 'DELIVERY ORDER' suggests that this contract award is not a standalone, new contract but rather an order placed against an existing, pre-established contract vehicle, such as a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) or a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA). These vehicles are often used for construction projects to streamline the procurement process for multiple, similar requirements. A delivery order specifies the work to be performed, the price, and the delivery schedule for a particular project under the umbrella of the larger contract. This method allows for quicker acquisition and potentially leverages pre-competed terms and conditions, but the initial competition occurred when the parent contract vehicle was established.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Solicitation ID: W912DQ07R0013
Offers Received: 1
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: $38,137,545
Exercised Options: $38,137,545
Current Obligation: $38,137,545
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W912DQ07D0053
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-12-21
Current End Date: 2009-06-30
Potential End Date: 2009-06-30 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)