M. A. Mortenson Company awarded $64.3M for construction at Fort Carson, Colorado, over 11 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $64,265,981 ($64.3M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-03-31
End Date: 2020-10-14
Contract Duration: 4,215 days
Daily Burn Rate: $15.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: 47TH BCT TEMF, FT CARSON, CO
Place of Performance
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80913
State: Colorado Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $64.3 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: 47TH BCT TEMF, FT CARSON, CO Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. Long duration of over 11 years may indicate a complex or ongoing need. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 4. The contract value of $64.3M over more than a decade suggests a significant investment in infrastructure. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating the primary competition was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. 6. The contract falls under Industrial Building Construction, a broad category with potential for varied project scopes.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $64.3 million spread over 11 years averages to approximately $5.8 million per year. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's difficult to benchmark this against similar contracts. However, for a large-scale construction project at a military installation, this annual figure might be within a reasonable range, assuming substantial infrastructure development. The firm fixed price nature of the contract is generally favorable for the government in terms of cost predictability, but the long duration could introduce risks if market conditions change significantly.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates there were 3 bids received. A competition with 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of market interest and potential for price discovery. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, 3 is often considered a reasonable number for complex construction projects where specialized capabilities are required.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging competitive pricing and potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and military personnel stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, through improved facilities. The contract delivers industrial building construction services, likely encompassing new construction, renovation, or maintenance of critical infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Carson, Colorado, supporting military operations and readiness in that region. The contract supports the construction workforce, potentially creating jobs for skilled trades and project management professionals in the Colorado area.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 11 years) could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively due to potential market fluctuations or scope creep.
- Firm Fixed Price contracts, while beneficial for cost certainty, can sometimes lead to contractor pressure to cut corners if not adequately overseen.
- Limited competition (3 bidders) might mean less aggressive pricing than if more firms had participated.
- The broad nature of 'Industrial Building Construction' could mask specific cost drivers or risks not immediately apparent.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified contractors.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
- The contract is for a significant duration, suggesting a stable, long-term need and commitment to infrastructure development.
- The contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, is a known entity in large-scale construction, implying experience with complex projects.
Sector Analysis
The industrial building construction sector is a significant part of the overall construction market, encompassing a wide range of projects from manufacturing plants to large-scale infrastructure at government facilities. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization needs, operational requirements, and national security imperatives. Comparable spending benchmarks are highly project-specific, but large military base construction projects can easily run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, making the $64.3M award for an 11-year period appear substantial but potentially in line with major infrastructure development.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the data indicates no indication of small business subcontracting goals being a primary driver. The award to M. A. Mortenson Company, a large construction firm, suggests that the primary competition was geared towards larger entities capable of handling extensive industrial building projects. This means the direct economic benefit to the small business ecosystem from this specific prime contract is likely limited, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Given the long duration and significant value, regular performance reviews, site inspections, and financial audits would be expected. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting mechanisms and public contract databases. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction (MILCON)
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
- Department of Defense Facilities Management
- Federal Building and Fire Safety Standards
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or scope creep.
- Limited number of bidders could indicate reduced price competition.
- Firm Fixed Price contracts require diligent oversight to ensure quality and prevent corner-cutting.
Tags
construction, industrial-building, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, fort-carson, colorado, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, large-contract, long-duration, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $64.3 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. 47TH BCT TEMF, FT CARSON, CO
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 $64.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-03-31. End: 2020-10-14.
What specific types of industrial buildings were constructed or renovated under this contract?
The provided data identifies the contract under the 'Industrial Building Construction' (NAICS 236210) category. This broad classification can encompass a variety of structures essential for military operations, such as maintenance facilities, workshops, storage depots, manufacturing plants, or specialized operational buildings. Without further details on the specific project scope, it's impossible to determine the exact nature of the buildings. However, given the location at Fort Carson, a major Army installation, these facilities likely support troop readiness, vehicle maintenance, equipment storage, or logistical operations critical to the base's mission.
How does the average annual cost of $5.8 million compare to similar construction projects at other military bases?
Benchmarking the average annual cost of $5.8 million requires detailed comparison with similar projects. Factors like project scope (new build vs. renovation), specific building types (e.g., barracks vs. aircraft hangar), location (cost of labor and materials), and the specific era of construction significantly influence costs. For large-scale industrial facilities at military bases, an average annual spend of this magnitude might be considered moderate to high, depending heavily on the complexity and scale of the work. A comprehensive analysis would involve comparing square footage, specific functionalities, and project timelines of comparable contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.
What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed price contract lasting over 11 years?
A firm fixed price (FFP) contract aims to provide cost certainty by fixing the price regardless of the contractor's actual costs. However, over an 11-year period, significant risks can emerge. Market volatility in material prices and labor rates could erode the contractor's profit margin, potentially leading to pressure to reduce quality or cut corners if oversight is lax. Conversely, if the initial price was set too high due to unforeseen future market conditions, the government might overpay. Scope creep, where the project's requirements expand beyond the original agreement, is another major risk. Without robust change order management and diligent oversight, an FFP contract of this duration can become a source of disputes or cost inefficiencies if not managed proactively.
What was the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company on similar federal construction contracts prior to this award?
M. A. Mortenson Company is a large, well-established construction firm with a significant history of undertaking major projects, including federal and military construction. While specific details of their prior federal contracts are not provided here, their general reputation suggests experience with large-scale, complex builds. A thorough analysis of their past performance would involve reviewing contract databases for similar projects, examining past performance evaluations (if publicly available), and assessing their history regarding cost overruns, schedule adherence, and quality on previous government contracts. Their ability to win a competitive bid for a project of this magnitude implies a satisfactory track record.
How did the number of bidders (3) impact the final contract price compared to a scenario with more bidders?
With only three bidders, the competitive pressure might be less intense than if, for example, five or more firms had submitted proposals. In a market with fewer competitors, each bidder might feel less compelled to offer the absolute lowest price, potentially leading to a higher final contract price than might have been achieved in a more crowded field. However, for specialized industrial construction, three bidders could represent a significant portion of the qualified market. The final price is also influenced by the government's cost estimates and the specific requirements of the project. Without knowing the initial bid amounts or the government's estimate, it's difficult to definitively state the price impact, but fewer bidders generally correlate with reduced price competition.
What are the potential long-term implications for Fort Carson's operational capabilities resulting from this construction?
The construction of industrial buildings at Fort Carson is intended to enhance or maintain the base's operational capabilities. Depending on the specific nature of the facilities, this could translate to improved maintenance and repair services for vehicles and equipment, more efficient storage solutions for critical supplies, enhanced training facilities, or upgraded logistical support infrastructure. Ultimately, these improvements contribute to the overall readiness and effectiveness of the units stationed at Fort Carson, ensuring they have the necessary facilities to perform their missions efficiently and safely over the long term.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial 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: W9128F07R0006
Offers Received: 3
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, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $64,265,981
Exercised Options: $64,265,981
Current Obligation: $64,265,981
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9128F07D0010
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-03-31
Current End Date: 2020-10-14
Potential End Date: 2020-10-14 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-11-20
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)