Tutor Perini Corporation awarded $71.5M contract for Army construction services, highlighting significant infrastructure investment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $71,554,736 ($71.6M)

Contractor: Tutor Perini Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-28

End Date: 2007-09-30

Contract Duration: 732 days

Daily Burn Rate: $97.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $71.6 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $71.5 million indicates substantial investment in Army infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Firm fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs. 4. Contract duration of 732 days points to a medium-to-long term project. 5. Awarded by the Department of Defense, this contract aligns with broader military readiness objectives. 6. The specific project scope is not detailed, making direct performance benchmarking difficult.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $71.5 million for construction services by the Department of the Army is substantial. Without specific details on the scope of work, it is challenging to benchmark against similar contracts or assess value for money definitively. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a clear understanding of costs between the parties, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and timeliness of the delivered construction.

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. This typically fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation. The fact that it was competed openly suggests the Army sought the best value through a broad solicitation process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best possible price and quality for construction services, reducing the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will receive improved or new facilities. Services delivered include construction, likely involving building, renovation, or repair of military infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the Army installation where the construction takes place. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for construction workers and related trades during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader construction and engineering sector, which is a significant area of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure development and maintenance. The Department of Defense is a major client for construction services, awarding billions annually for building and renovating facilities worldwide. Benchmarking this $71.5 million award would involve comparing it to other large-scale military construction projects, considering factors like project complexity, location, and prevailing market rates for labor and materials.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. While Tutor Perini Corporation is a large prime contractor, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's strategy and the specific requirements of the construction project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and their representatives within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, which obligates the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, infrastructure, tutor-perini-corporation, us-federal-government

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $71.6 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $71.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-28. End: 2007-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the construction services provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the construction services. It is identified as a contract awarded to Tutor Perini Corporation by the Department of the Army. Typically, such contracts could involve the construction of new facilities, renovation of existing buildings, infrastructure development (roads, utilities), or specialized construction related to military operations. Without further details on the Statement of Work (SOW), a precise description of the services cannot be determined. The contract value of $71.5 million suggests a project of considerable scale and complexity.

How does the $71.5 million award compare to other similar construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The $71.5 million award is a significant sum, placing it in the category of large-scale construction projects. The Department of the Army, through entities like the Army Corps of Engineers, awards numerous construction contracts annually, with values ranging from small to billions of dollars. For context, major MILCON (Military Construction) projects often exceed this amount. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze contracts with similar scopes (e.g., barracks, training facilities, maintenance depots) awarded within a comparable timeframe and geographic region. However, as a general benchmark, $71.5 million represents a substantial investment in a single construction endeavor.

What are the key risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this magnitude and duration?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, while offering cost certainty to the government, shifts significant risk to the contractor. For a contract valued at $71.5 million and spanning 732 days, key risks include: 1. Contractor Underestimation: The contractor may underestimate material, labor, or unforeseen site conditions, leading to financial losses if they cannot renegotiate terms. 2. Scope Creep: If the government requires changes or additions beyond the original scope, managing these within the FFP structure can be contentious and may lead to disputes or claims. 3. Quality Compromise: To maintain profitability under an FFP, a contractor might be tempted to cut corners on quality if oversight is insufficient. 4. Market Fluctuations: Unforeseen spikes in material costs or labor shortages could severely impact the contractor's profit margin. Robust project management and clear contract terms are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What is Tutor Perini Corporation's track record with federal construction contracts?

Tutor Perini Corporation is a well-established construction company with a long history of undertaking large and complex projects, including many for federal agencies. They have a significant portfolio of work with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other government entities. Their experience spans various types of construction, from infrastructure and transportation to healthcare and educational facilities. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are not detailed in the provided data, their continued success in winning large federal contracts suggests a generally positive track record. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced challenges or disputes on specific projects, which would require deeper investigation into contract performance histories.

How has federal spending on construction services for the Department of Defense trended historically?

Federal spending on construction services for the Department of Defense (DoD) has historically been substantial, driven by the need to maintain, modernize, and expand military infrastructure globally. This spending often fluctuates based on geopolitical conditions, military readiness requirements, and congressional appropriations. The DoD is consistently one of the largest federal clients for construction services, often utilizing the Army Corps of Engineers and Navy Facilities Engineering Command as primary execution agents. Trends can show periods of increased investment during wartime or major force structure changes, followed by periods of consolidation or focus on maintenance. Analyzing historical spending patterns requires examining budget allocations for Military Construction (MILCON) and general facility sustainment, repair, and operations (SRO) over multiple fiscal years.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 73 MT WAYTE AVENUE, FRAMINGHAM, MA, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912ER04D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-09-28

Current End Date: 2007-09-30

Potential End Date: 2007-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2011-09-17

More Contracts from Tutor Perini Corporation

View all Tutor Perini Corporation federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending