Army awards $18.5M for advanced individual training complex construction, completed on time
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $18,524,920 ($18.5M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2011-04-06
End Date: 2011-12-23
Contract Duration: 261 days
Daily Burn Rate: $71.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR AN ADVANCED INDIVIDUAL TRAINING COMPLEX.
Place of Performance
Location: FORT EUSTIS, NEWPORT NEWS CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23604
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $18.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR AN ADVANCED INDIVIDUAL TRAINING COMPLEX. Key points: 1. Project delivered within the initial timeframe, indicating effective project management. 2. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 3. Fixed-price contract type likely transferred risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 4. The project falls under the broad category of commercial and institutional building construction. 5. The award was a delivery order against an existing contract, suggesting potential for streamlined procurement. 6. The contractor has a history of performing government contracts, providing some level of assurance.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award amount of $18.5 million for the construction of an advanced individual training complex appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for military training facilities would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the initial price was determined through negotiation and competition, aiming for cost certainty. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar projects awarded concurrently, a definitive value-for-money judgment is challenging, but the on-time completion is a positive indicator.
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 four bidders (no) suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. This competitive environment is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more cost-effective outcomes for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.
Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this construction project likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers, as contractors vied to win the bid by offering competitive terms.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new advanced individual training complex. The project delivers essential infrastructure for military training, enhancing readiness and operational capabilities. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Lee, Virginia, where the facility is located. The construction project likely involved a significant number of skilled laborers and tradespeople, supporting the local and regional workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price fluctuations occurred, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
- Dependence on contractor's ability to manage complex construction schedules and quality control.
- Risk of delays if permitting or regulatory approvals were not managed efficiently.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
- Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
- Project completed within the specified duration, demonstrating effective project management.
- Contract awarded to a known entity (M. A. Mortenson Company) with experience in government contracting.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for large-scale military facility construction is substantial, often involving specialized requirements and stringent security protocols. Spending in this area is driven by modernization efforts, troop readiness needs, and infrastructure upgrades. Comparable benchmarks would include other large military barracks, training facilities, or administrative buildings awarded by the Department of Defense.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. The absence of set-aside provisions means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily be through subcontracting, the extent of which is not detailed here.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense. Oversight would typically involve contracting officers, project managers, and potentially quality assurance representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers or relevant installation command. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Training Facilities Construction
- Department of Defense Facilities
- General Building Construction, Repair, and Maintenance
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost increases if unforeseen site conditions arise, although mitigated by fixed-price contract.
- Risk of schedule delays due to weather, supply chain issues, or labor shortages.
- Ensuring compliance with all military-specific construction standards and security protocols.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, army, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, training-facility, virginia, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, large-project
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $18.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR AN ADVANCED INDIVIDUAL TRAINING COMPLEX.
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 $18.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-04-06. End: 2011-12-23.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with Department of Defense contracts?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant track record with the Department of Defense, having been awarded numerous contracts over the years. Their experience spans various types of construction, including military facilities, research laboratories, and educational institutions. Reviewing their past performance on similar-sized projects, particularly those involving complex training facilities or government-mandated specifications, would provide further insight into their capabilities and reliability. Data from contract databases often includes past performance ratings, which can indicate their success in meeting cost, schedule, and quality requirements on previous DoD engagements.
How does the $18.5 million cost compare to similar advanced individual training complex constructions?
Benchmarking the $18.5 million cost against similar advanced individual training complexes is challenging without access to a detailed cost breakdown and specific project scope comparisons. However, the award was made under full and open competition with four bidders, suggesting a competitive pricing environment that likely yielded a reasonable market price. Factors influencing cost include facility size, specialized training equipment integration, geographic location (labor and material costs), and specific security or technological requirements. A comprehensive comparison would require analyzing data from recently awarded, similarly sized military training facility construction projects.
What are the primary risks associated with constructing a large military training facility?
Key risks in constructing large military training facilities include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), fluctuations in material costs and labor availability, complex integration of specialized training systems, adherence to stringent military specifications and security requirements, and potential delays in permitting or regulatory approvals. The firm fixed-price contract type helps mitigate financial risks for the government by capping the contractor's potential profit and transferring cost overrun responsibility. However, effective project management, robust contingency planning, and diligent oversight are crucial to manage schedule and quality risks.
How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for construction projects like this?
The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for managing costs in construction projects when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are understood. It provides the government with cost certainty, as the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This incentivizes the contractor to manage resources efficiently and control expenses to maximize profit. For a project like the advanced individual training complex, where the physical construction scope is relatively clear, FFP is a suitable choice. However, it can lead to higher initial bid prices as contractors factor in potential risks, and it offers less flexibility for scope changes compared to cost-reimbursement contracts.
What is the historical spending trend for similar Army training facility construction projects?
Historical spending trends for similar Army training facility construction projects can vary significantly based on military modernization priorities, geopolitical factors, and budget allocations. Generally, the Army invests substantial funds annually in infrastructure, including training facilities, to maintain readiness and adapt to evolving military needs. Spending can fluctuate year-to-year, influenced by major construction initiatives or specific program requirements. Analyzing aggregated spending data over several fiscal years for categories like 'Military Construction, Army' or 'Training Facilities' would reveal overall trends, peak spending periods, and the average cost of comparable projects.
What does the completion within the specified duration (261 days) imply about the project's execution?
Completion within the specified duration of 261 days is a strong positive indicator of effective project execution and management. It suggests that the contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, successfully planned, coordinated, and executed the construction activities within the agreed-upon timeline. This timely completion minimizes potential disruptions, avoids extended overhead costs for the government, and ensures that the training facility is available for use as intended, contributing to operational readiness. It also reflects positively on the government's oversight and the contractor's ability to navigate potential challenges efficiently.
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: $19,654,920
Exercised Options: $18,953,920
Current Obligation: $18,524,920
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 22
Total Subaward Amount: $15,535,124
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: 2011-04-06
Current End Date: 2011-12-23
Potential End Date: 2011-12-23 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-06-04
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)