M. A. Mortenson Company awarded $28.4M for barracks construction, highlighting fixed-price contracts in defense infrastructure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $28,442,781 ($28.4M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2010-04-19
End Date: 2013-01-11
Contract Duration: 998 days
Daily Burn Rate: $28.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCTION OF BARRACKS & SITE
Place of Performance
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80913
State: Colorado Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $28.4 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCTION OF BARRACKS & SITE Key points: 1. The firm fixed-price contract structure suggests a defined scope and cost control by the Department of the Army. 2. Competition dynamics for this project are assessed to understand potential cost efficiencies achieved. 3. The duration of the contract (998 days) indicates a significant construction undertaking. 4. Performance context is evaluated against similar military construction projects. 5. This contract falls within the broader defense sector's infrastructure development spending. 6. The absence of small business set-asides is noted for this specific award.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $28.4 million for barracks construction appears reasonable given the project's scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction projects of this scale would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract generally indicates that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the price was competitive.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. This competitive process is expected to drive down prices and ensure the government receives fair market value. The presence of 5 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this type of defense construction work.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that leads to more cost-effective contract awards and prevents potential price gouging.
Public Impact
Service members will benefit from improved living quarters through the construction of new barracks. The project delivers essential infrastructure development for the Department of the Army. The geographic impact is concentrated in Colorado, where the construction took place. The construction project likely supported a workforce of skilled trades and laborers in the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
- Delays in construction schedule could impact troop readiness and housing availability.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process leading to potentially favorable pricing.
- Award to M. A. Mortenson Company, a known entity in large-scale construction, suggests a degree of reliability.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically serving the defense industry's infrastructure needs. The Department of Defense is a significant investor in construction projects to maintain and upgrade its facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot or per bed for similar barracks construction projects across different military branches and geographic locations.
Small Business Impact
This contract did not include a small business set-aside, nor is there information indicating significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award went to a large prime contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting plans were mandated or if small businesses were involved in the supply chain for this project.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, ensuring compliance with contract terms and specifications. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, with penalties or incentives potentially tied to performance and schedule adherence. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports may not be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction, Army
- Family Housing Construction
- Defense Infrastructure Projects
- Barracks and Dormitory Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays
- Unforeseen site conditions
- Labor cost fluctuations
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, barracks, infrastructure, colorado, large-contract, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $28.4 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRACKS & SITE
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 $28.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2010-04-19. End: 2013-01-11.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense for similar construction projects?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of working with the Department of Defense on various construction projects, including barracks, training facilities, and other infrastructure. Their experience often involves large-scale, complex builds requiring adherence to strict military specifications and security protocols. Reviewing past performance evaluations and contract completion data for similar projects would provide insight into their reliability, quality of work, and ability to manage costs and schedules effectively within the defense sector. This specific contract, valued at $28.4 million and completed over approximately three years, represents a substantial undertaking that aligns with their capabilities.
How does the awarded price compare to industry benchmarks for barracks construction of similar size and scope?
To benchmark the $28.4 million award, one would typically compare the cost per square foot or cost per bed against similar barracks construction projects undertaken by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies in comparable geographic regions. Factors such as site preparation complexity, material costs, labor rates in Colorado, and specific design requirements (e.g., security features, sustainability standards) would influence this comparison. Without detailed project specifications, a precise benchmark is difficult, but the firm fixed-price nature suggests the government sought cost certainty. A preliminary assessment indicates the price is within a reasonable range for a project of this magnitude, assuming standard construction complexities.
What were the primary risk indicators identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract?
Primary risk indicators for a construction contract of this nature often include potential for schedule delays due to weather, unforeseen site conditions (e.g., soil issues, hazardous materials), labor availability and cost fluctuations, and material procurement challenges. The Department of the Army would have assessed these risks during the solicitation phase by reviewing bidder qualifications, proposed schedules, and cost proposals. The firm fixed-price contract structure itself is a risk mitigation strategy, transferring cost overrun risk to the contractor. The presence of 5 bids suggests that potential bidders found the project risks manageable relative to the potential reward and contract terms.
How effective was the full and open competition in achieving cost savings for this barracks construction project?
The effectiveness of full and open competition in achieving cost savings is typically evaluated by comparing the final awarded price against the government's independent cost estimate (if available) or against the prices submitted by other bidders. With 5 bids received, the competitive environment likely pressured bidders to offer their most competitive pricing. The firm fixed-price structure further incentivizes the winning contractor to manage costs efficiently to maximize profit. While the exact savings cannot be quantified without pre-bid estimates, the process itself is designed to yield a price that reflects market conditions and competitive pressures, thereby benefiting taxpayers.
What is the historical spending pattern for barracks construction by the Department of the Army in the last five years?
Historical spending patterns for barracks construction by the Department of the Army show a consistent and significant investment in military housing and infrastructure. Annual expenditures can fluctuate based on modernization needs, troop deployment cycles, and budget allocations, but generally range in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars across all branches. This $28.4 million contract is one component of that larger spending trend. Analyzing trends would reveal if spending has increased or decreased, and whether there's a shift towards specific types of construction (e.g., sustainable materials, modular construction) or geographic concentrations.
What are the implications of the contract duration (998 days) on troop readiness and housing?
A contract duration of 998 days (approximately 2.7 years) for barracks construction implies a substantial project timeline, likely involving significant site development, foundation work, structural erection, and interior finishing. Such a long duration means that existing housing facilities will need to remain operational or temporary solutions will be required for the troops intended to occupy the new barracks. Delays in completion could directly impact troop readiness by affecting morale, quality of life, and potentially the ability to station or deploy units effectively. Conversely, timely completion ensures improved living conditions and supports personnel retention efforts.
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, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $28,442,781
Exercised Options: $28,442,781
Current Obligation: $28,442,781
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9126G08D0048
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2010-04-19
Current End Date: 2013-01-11
Potential End Date: 2013-01-11 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-12-11
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)