DoD's $11.45M helicopter trainer facility construction contract awarded to M.A. Mortenson Company
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $11,450,698 ($11.5M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2007-03-30
End Date: 2008-10-10
Contract Duration: 560 days
Daily Burn Rate: $20.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY
Place of Performance
Location: NORFOLK, NORFOLK CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23511
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $11.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The fixed-price contract type generally shifts risk to the contractor. 3. The project was a delivery order under a larger contract, indicating potential for follow-on work. 4. The duration of 560 days for construction is a key performance metric. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the DoD. 6. The project falls under industrial building construction, a significant sector for defense infrastructure.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific construction contract is challenging without comparable projects in the immediate vicinity or for similar specialized facilities. The fixed-price nature suggests the contractor assumed cost overruns, which can be a positive for the government if managed well. However, the final cost relative to initial estimates or industry standards for similar square footage and complexity would be needed for a more definitive value assessment.
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 a bid. This typically involves a robust solicitation process designed to encourage multiple bids. The number of bidders is not specified, but the designation suggests a competitive environment that should theoretically lead to better pricing and value for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces and encouraging contractors to offer their best pricing and performance.
Public Impact
Naval aviators and aircrew will benefit from enhanced training capabilities. The facility will provide a dedicated space for helicopter simulator training. The geographic impact is primarily within Virginia, supporting naval operations in the region. The construction project likely created temporary jobs in the local construction industry. The improved training infrastructure supports the readiness of naval aviation forces.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if fixed-price contract was not adequately scoped.
- Construction delays could impact training schedules.
- Ensuring the facility meets all specialized training equipment requirements.
Positive Signals
- Fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to contractor.
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
- Supports critical naval aviation training infrastructure.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Industrial Building Construction sector, a critical component of defense infrastructure development. The market for specialized military training facilities is niche, often driven by specific platform requirements and geographic needs of the armed forces. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale construction projects for government facilities, particularly those related to training or operational readiness.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, is likely a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award, which could represent missed opportunities for the small business ecosystem unless addressed in the broader contract vehicle from which this delivery order was issued.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and facilities management divisions. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver the facility as specified. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract lifecycle.
Related Government Programs
- Naval Air Training Facilities
- Defense Construction Projects
- Military Simulation and Training Infrastructure
- Department of Defense Facilities Management
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if fixed-price contract was not adequately scoped.
- Construction delays impacting training schedules.
- Ensuring the facility meets all specialized training equipment requirements.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, industrial-building, helicopter-training, virginia, delivery-order, defense-infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $11.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY
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 Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $11.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-03-30. End: 2008-10-10.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a history of securing contracts with the Department of Defense, including various construction and facility projects. Analyzing their past performance on similar DoD contracts would involve reviewing award data for timeliness, cost performance, and quality of work. A deeper dive would look at any past performance evaluations, disputes, or contract modifications to assess their reliability and expertise in executing large-scale government projects. Their experience suggests a familiarity with federal procurement processes and requirements.
How does the awarded amount compare to industry benchmarks for similar construction projects?
Direct comparison of the $11.45 million award for the MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY to industry benchmarks is difficult without detailed project specifications, square footage, and specific technological requirements of the trainer. However, construction costs for specialized government facilities can vary significantly based on location, security requirements, and unique equipment integration. A comprehensive benchmark would require analyzing cost-per-square-foot data for similar industrial or specialized training facilities, adjusted for regional construction cost indices and the complexity inherent in military training infrastructure.
What are the primary risks associated with this fixed-price construction contract?
The primary risks for the government in a fixed-price contract like this are minimal regarding cost overruns, as the contractor assumes that risk. However, risks can include potential for scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined, contractor default or poor performance leading to delays or quality issues, and the possibility that the contractor may cut corners to maintain profitability if margins are tight. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating costs, encountering unforeseen site conditions, or facing material price increases.
How effective is this facility expected to be in enhancing helicopter pilot training?
The effectiveness of the MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY hinges on its design, the fidelity of the simulators it houses, and its integration into the overall naval aviation training curriculum. Assuming the facility is built to specification and equipped with state-of-the-art simulators, it should significantly enhance training by providing a safe, repeatable, and cost-effective environment for pilots to practice complex maneuvers and emergency procedures. Its success will be measured by improvements in training outcomes, reduced flight hours needed for proficiency, and overall pilot readiness.
What are the historical spending patterns for helicopter training facilities by the Department of the Navy?
Historical spending patterns for helicopter training facilities by the Department of the Navy would likely show a consistent investment in infrastructure to support its diverse helicopter fleet operations. This includes spending on simulators, maintenance facilities, and dedicated training grounds. Analyzing past contracts would reveal trends in technology adoption (e.g., shift towards virtual reality simulators), the average cost of such facilities, and the geographic distribution of training investments. Fluctuations in spending may correlate with new aircraft procurements, changes in training doctrine, or budget allocations.
Were there any significant challenges or disputes during the execution of this contract?
Information regarding specific challenges or disputes during the execution of this particular contract (MILCO P-707 D/B HELICOPTER TRAINER FACILITY) is not readily available in the provided summary data. Contract execution can face various challenges, including weather delays, unforeseen site conditions, material shortages, or disagreements over contract scope or quality. A thorough review of contract modification history, payment records, and any official dispute resolution filings would be necessary to identify any significant issues that arose during its 560-day duration.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Industrial Building Construction
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: M. a. Mortenson Companies, Inc. (UEI: 130731797)
Address: 700 MEADOW LANE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 55422
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $11,450,698
Exercised Options: $11,450,698
Current Obligation: $11,450,698
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N6247201D0077
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-03-30
Current End Date: 2008-10-10
Potential End Date: 2008-10-10 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-08-04
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)