Tutor Perini Corporation awarded $29.5M by DoD for Army construction services
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $29,529,563 ($29.5M)
Contractor: Tutor Perini Corporation
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-06-23
End Date: 2012-06-30
Contract Duration: 2,199 days
Daily Burn Rate: $13.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 60
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $29.5 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration indicates a long-term commitment to the project. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. Agency's historical spending patterns may offer context for this award.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $29.5 million for construction services appears substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar Army construction projects of this scope and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the duration of nearly six years suggests a large-scale undertaking. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. Further analysis would require comparison with similar projects awarded by the Department of the Army or other branches of the DoD.
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 approach generally fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The fact that it was competed openly suggests the government sought to maximize value and innovation by engaging a broad range of potential contractors. The number of bids received would provide further insight into the actual level of competition.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it is expected to drive down prices through market forces and encourage a wider pool of qualified contractors, potentially leading to better overall value.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who will receive improved or new construction facilities. Services delivered include large-scale construction, likely involving significant labor and material resources. The geographic impact is localized to the specific Army installation where the construction takes place. Workforce implications include the creation of numerous construction jobs, both directly with the contractor and indirectly through subcontractors and suppliers.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
- Risk of schedule delays impacting military readiness or operational capabilities.
- Quality control issues in large-scale construction projects can arise without rigorous oversight.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially saving taxpayer money if costs are managed well.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process that could lead to competitive pricing.
- Long contract duration allows for phased construction and potential learning curve efficiencies.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically supporting government infrastructure development. The federal government is a major client for construction services, with significant annual spending across various agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and Department of Veterans Affairs. The market for large-scale government construction is often characterized by a mix of large prime contractors and a network of specialized subcontractors. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to other major military construction projects, considering factors like project type, scale, and location.
Small Business Impact
While the contract was awarded under full and open competition, there is no explicit indication of a small business set-aside. Large construction contracts often involve significant subcontracting opportunities. It is probable that Tutor Perini Corporation will engage various small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill specialized aspects of the construction project. The extent of small business participation and subcontracting would be a key factor in assessing the contract's impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army project management office. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and quality requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Program (MILCON)
- Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM)
- General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration increases exposure to market fluctuations and potential scope creep.
- Firm Fixed Price contracts can lead to disputes if scope is not perfectly defined.
- Large scale construction projects carry inherent risks of unforeseen site conditions and delays.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, infrastructure, large-contract, tutor-perini-corporation, us-federal-government
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $29.5 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 $29.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-06-23. End: 2012-06-30.
What is the track record of Tutor Perini Corporation on similar large-scale federal construction contracts?
Tutor Perini Corporation has a substantial history of undertaking large and complex construction projects for the federal government, including significant work for the Department of Defense. Their portfolio includes a wide range of infrastructure, from military facilities and airfields to healthcare and research buildings. Analyzing their past performance on similar firm-fixed-price contracts would involve reviewing their on-time and on-budget delivery rates, any significant claims or disputes, and client satisfaction feedback. A review of their contract history might reveal patterns in project complexity, geographic distribution, and the types of construction services provided, offering insights into their capabilities and potential risks associated with this specific award.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or initial budget for this construction project?
The awarded amount of $29.5 million represents the final negotiated price for the construction services. To assess value, this figure should be compared against the government's initial cost estimates or budget allocated for the project. If the awarded amount is significantly lower than estimates, it could indicate successful competition and cost savings for taxpayers. Conversely, if it is close to or exceeds estimates, further scrutiny might be warranted to understand the reasons. Without access to the government's pre-award estimates or budget documentation, a definitive comparison is not possible. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition suggests that the price was deemed fair and reasonable by the contracting officer.
What are the primary risk indicators associated with this specific contract, considering its duration and type?
Key risk indicators for this contract include the long duration (nearly six years), which increases the potential for unforeseen site conditions, material price escalation (despite the fixed-price nature), and changes in project requirements. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type, while shifting cost risk to the contractor, can lead to disputes if the scope is not clearly defined or if the contractor encounters unexpected challenges. Potential risks also involve the contractor's capacity to manage such a large project over an extended period, ensuring consistent quality and adherence to schedule. Furthermore, the specific nature of military construction can involve unique security requirements or operational constraints that add complexity and risk.
What historical spending patterns exist for similar construction services awarded by the Department of the Army?
The Department of the Army consistently awards substantial contracts for construction services, often categorized under Military Construction (MILCON) or facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM). Historical spending data reveals a significant annual investment in building and maintaining military infrastructure across various installations. Spending patterns often reflect modernization efforts, capacity expansion, or replacement of aging facilities. Analyzing past awards for similar project types (e.g., barracks, training facilities, operational buildings) and contract values can provide benchmarks for pricing, typical contract durations, and the level of competition typically seen for such projects. This context helps in evaluating whether the $29.5 million award is within the expected range for comparable work.
How does the firm-fixed-price contract type influence contractor performance and government oversight?
A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide price certainty for the government. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor assumes the primary responsibility for all costs incurred and is only entitled to the agreed-upon price, regardless of the actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and control performance to maximize profit. For the government, this means less financial risk related to cost overruns. However, it places a greater emphasis on clearly defining the contract scope, specifications, and requirements upfront to avoid disputes. Government oversight then focuses more on ensuring compliance with the defined scope, quality standards, and schedule, rather than managing cost variances.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 60
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
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $71,262,236
Exercised Options: $71,262,236
Current Obligation: $29,529,563
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W912ER04D0008
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-06-23
Current End Date: 2012-06-30
Potential End Date: 2012-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-05-17
More Contracts from Tutor Perini Corporation
- 200312!001242!2100!CA78 !transatlantic Program Center !daca7803d0006 !A!N! !N!0002 !20030919!20040331!006954432!006954432!006954432!n!perini Corporation !73 MT Wayte Avenue !framingham !MA!01701!* !* !IZ!* !* !iraq !+000000460000!n!n!000000000000!y199!other Miscellaneous Buildings !C2 !construction !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !236220!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20040331!B! ! !n!a!d!n!u!1!001!n!2a!z!n!z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! !Y!Y! ! !0001! ! — $379.4M (Department of Defense)
- Design/Build Embassy Housing — $157.2M (Department of Defense)
- 200512!501265!2100!w912er!transatlantic Program Center !w912er04d0008 !A!N! !N!0003 ! !20050928!20061231!006954432!006954432!006954432!n!perini Corporation !73 Mount Wayte AVE !framingham !MA!01701!00000! !IZ!* !* !iraq !+000119283840!n!n!000000000000!y159!other Industrial Buildings !C2 !construction !000 !* !236220!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!u!j!2!001!b! !Z!N!A! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $127.2M (Department of Defense)
- Design/Build Hurricane Rebuild Task Order for SAN Juan Phase II East Base BID and Option 5: SE X Waterfront Boat Ramp — $117.0M (Department of Homeland Security)
- Ffp/Satoc Saudi Arabia (FMS) F-15 Modernizaiton Program, Khurais Electronic Warfare Range., Psab 13-0004 — $106.4M (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)