Tutor Perini Corporation awarded $28.18M contract for overhead protection construction by the Department of the Army
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $28,175,353 ($28.2M)
Contractor: Tutor Perini Corporation
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-09-21
End Date: 2008-06-30
Contract Duration: 648 days
Daily Burn Rate: $43.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 60
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT OVERHEAD PROTECTION
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $28.2 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION for work described as: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT OVERHEAD PROTECTION Key points: 1. The contract value of $28.18 million represents a significant investment in infrastructure protection. 2. Competition dynamics for this project are assessed to understand pricing efficiency. 3. Risk indicators are evaluated based on project scope and contractor performance history. 4. Performance context is established by comparing this award to similar construction projects. 5. The contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. 6. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests a defined cost structure.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $28.18 million for overhead protection construction appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar Department of Defense construction projects indicates that pricing is within expected ranges for this type of specialized work. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of robust competition typically drives more competitive pricing and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions. The specific number of bidders is not detailed, but the category indicates a healthy market response.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives the most advantageous pricing and terms possible through a broad solicitation process.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army personnel and assets requiring enhanced overhead protection. The service delivered is the design and construction of essential protective infrastructure. The geographic impact is likely localized to a specific Army installation. Workforce implications include employment for construction labor and project management personnel.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for schedule delays in large-scale construction projects.
- Ensuring adherence to stringent military construction standards and specifications.
Positive Signals
- Award to a large, established construction firm with experience in government contracts.
- Firm-fixed-price contract type limits cost overrun risk for the government.
- Completion of essential protective infrastructure enhances operational readiness.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on protective infrastructure. The market for defense construction is substantial, with significant annual spending by agencies like the Department of Defense on facility upgrades and new builds. This project represents a specific need within that broader sector, addressing safety and security requirements.
Small Business Impact
The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. While Tutor Perini Corporation is a large business, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, depending on the project's subcontracting plan and the specific needs of the prime contractor.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Army Corps of Engineers district. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified work within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Construction Contracts
- Army Facilities Modernization Programs
- Infrastructure Protection Projects
Risk Flags
- Potential for construction delays
- Adherence to military specifications
- Site condition risks
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, infrastructure, overhead-protection, tutor-perini-corporation, us-army
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $28.2 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT OVERHEAD PROTECTION
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 $28.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-09-21. End: 2008-06-30.
What is Tutor Perini Corporation's track record with the Department of the Army?
Tutor Perini Corporation has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense, including the Department of the Army. Their experience spans various construction and engineering projects, often involving large-scale infrastructure and facility development. While specific performance details for every contract are not publicly itemized, their continued awards suggest a generally satisfactory performance record. Analyzing past project completion times, cost performance, and any documented disputes or claims would provide a more granular understanding of their specific track record with the Army.
How does the $28.18 million award compare to similar overhead protection construction contracts?
The $28.18 million award for overhead protection construction is a substantial figure, indicative of a significant project scope. To benchmark effectively, one would compare this value against other contracts for similar protective structures at military installations or large federal facilities. Factors such as the size of the area to be protected, the complexity of the design, the materials used, and the specific security requirements would influence cost. Without direct comparisons of projects with identical specifications, it's challenging to provide a precise value-for-money assessment, but the amount suggests a comprehensive solution rather than a minor upgrade.
What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract?
Key risk indicators for this contract include the inherent complexities of large-scale construction projects, such as potential for unforeseen site conditions, material cost fluctuations (though mitigated by fixed-price), and labor availability. Given it's a Department of the Army contract, adherence to strict military specifications and security protocols presents a compliance risk. The duration of the project (estimated 648 days) also introduces schedule risk. The contractor's past performance on similar projects, including any history of delays or cost overruns, would be a critical factor in assessing overall project risk.
How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in managing costs for this project?
The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for managing costs in projects where the scope of work is well-defined, as is expected for construction. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor assumes the primary risk of cost overruns, meaning they are obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price regardless of their actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to control expenses and manage the project efficiently. For the government, this provides significant cost certainty. However, if the scope changes significantly, change orders can increase the total contract value.
What is the historical spending pattern for overhead protection construction by the Department of the Army?
Historical spending patterns for overhead protection construction by the Department of the Army would likely show a consistent, albeit project-specific, investment in facility safety and security. This type of spending is often driven by evolving threat assessments, infrastructure aging, and regulatory requirements. While specific aggregate data for 'overhead protection' alone might be difficult to isolate from broader construction and facility improvement budgets, it's a component of overall base infrastructure maintenance and upgrade spending. Trends would likely reflect broader defense budget allocations and modernization priorities.
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
Offers Received: 60
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 73 MT WAYTE AVENUE, FRAMINGHAM, MA, 05
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $28,175,353
Exercised Options: $28,175,353
Current Obligation: $28,175,353
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W912ER04D0008
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-09-21
Current End Date: 2008-06-30
Potential End Date: 2008-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2009-11-24
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)