Nearly $15 million awarded for poultry research center modernization, a multi-year design-build project

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $149,565,662 ($149.6M)

Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2017-07-31

End Date: 2026-05-31

Contract Duration: 3,226 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: 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

Place of Performance

Location: ATHENS, CLARKE County, GEORGIA, 30605

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $149.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: 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 … Key points: 1. The contract utilizes a two-phase design-build approach, aiming to identify and select the most qualified firms. 2. This acquisition focuses on the modernization of a critical research facility, suggesting a need for specialized construction expertise. 3. The project spans several years, indicating a significant investment in infrastructure upgrades. 4. The use of a firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that cost certainty was a priority for the government. 5. The project is located in Georgia, potentially impacting local construction workforce and material sourcing.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $15 million for a multi-year design-build project for a research facility appears reasonable. Benchmarking against similar large-scale institutional construction projects would provide further context. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests the government sought to control costs, but the long duration could introduce risks if initial estimates do not account for inflation or unforeseen site conditions. Without specific cost breakdowns for design and construction phases, a detailed value assessment is challenging.

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 offers. The solicitation process involved a two-phase approach: an initial pre-selection phase to shortlist a maximum of four highly qualified offerors, followed by a Phase II where shortlisted firms submit detailed technical and price proposals. This method aims to streamline the process by focusing on the most capable bidders for the final selection.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and higher quality services. The two-phase approach further refines this by ensuring that only the most qualified entities proceed, potentially reducing wasted bid preparation costs for less qualified firms and increasing the likelihood of a successful outcome for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are researchers and staff at the U.S. National Poultry Research Center (USNPRC), who will gain access to modernized facilities. The project delivers essential infrastructure upgrades for advanced poultry research, potentially leading to advancements in animal health, food safety, and agricultural practices. The geographic impact is concentrated in Athens, Georgia, where the SEPRL campus is located. The construction and modernization efforts will likely create temporary employment opportunities for skilled trades and construction workers in the Athens, GA area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long project duration (over 3 years) increases the risk of cost overruns due to inflation or unforeseen site conditions.
The two-phase selection process, while efficient, requires significant upfront effort from potential bidders, potentially limiting participation.
Dependence on a single contractor for both design and build could lead to less oversight on design choices if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

Utilizing a design-build approach can streamline project delivery and potentially reduce overall project timelines.
The selection of highly qualified firms in Phase I aims to mitigate risks associated with contractor performance.
Full and open competition is a positive signal for achieving competitive pricing and quality.

Sector Analysis

The construction sector, particularly commercial and institutional building construction, is a significant part of the U.S. economy. This contract falls within the specialized area of building and modernizing research facilities, which often require specific technical expertise and adherence to stringent regulatory standards. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar government-funded research facility construction projects would indicate if this contract's value is within the expected range for its scope and complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb) is marked as false, suggesting no specific small business set-aside was applied to this contract. Furthermore, there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This implies that the primary focus was on securing the best overall offer through full and open competition, rather than prioritizing small business inclusion through set-asides. The impact on the small business ecosystem would be minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the Department of Agriculture. The contract type (definitive contract with firm-fixed-price) implies clear deliverables and payment terms, which aids accountability. Transparency is generally maintained through federal contract databases, but specific oversight mechanisms like regular progress reviews, site inspections, and quality assurance checks by the contracting officer's representative (COR) are crucial for ensuring performance and adherence to design specifications. The Inspector General's office of the USDA would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any irregularities arise.

Related Government Programs

Federal Building Construction
Research Facility Modernization
Design-Build Contracts
Agricultural Research Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration increases exposure to economic fluctuations.
Potential for scope creep if design criteria are not fully defined early.
Reliance on a single contractor for both design and build requires diligent oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $149.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. 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

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $149.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-07-31. End: 2026-05-31.

What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company in completing similar large-scale government design-build projects?

M. A. Mortenson Company has a substantial track record in large-scale construction, including significant work for government agencies and research institutions. They have experience in various sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. While specific details on their past performance on federal design-build projects for research facilities would require a deeper dive into contract databases and performance reports, their general reputation suggests they are a capable entity for such complex undertakings. Analyzing their past project completion times, budget adherence, and client satisfaction ratings for similar projects would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise in this specific domain.

How does the estimated cost per square foot for this project compare to similar institutional building construction projects?

Without the total square footage of the modernized facility, a direct cost per square foot comparison is not possible. However, the total contract value of approximately $15 million for a multi-year design-build project for a research center suggests a significant investment. To benchmark, one would need to identify comparable projects in terms of size, complexity, and location. Factors such as specialized laboratory requirements, advanced HVAC systems, and specific safety features common in research facilities can drive up costs compared to standard commercial buildings. A detailed analysis would involve comparing this project's scope and features against publicly available data for similar federal or institutional construction projects.

What are the primary risks associated with the two-phase design-build acquisition strategy for this project?

The primary risks associated with a two-phase design-build strategy include potential delays and increased costs if the initial pre-selection phase does not accurately identify the most capable firms, leading to a less competitive Phase II. There's also a risk that firms invest significant resources in Phase II proposals without a guarantee of selection. For the government, ensuring that the 'shortlisting' criteria are objective and well-defined is critical to avoid protests or perceptions of bias. Furthermore, managing the transition between the design and build phases requires robust oversight to ensure the design intent is fully realized in the construction.

What is the historical spending pattern for the modernization and construction of agricultural research facilities by the Department of Agriculture?

Historical spending on agricultural research facility modernization by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) can vary significantly year to year, influenced by budget appropriations, infrastructure needs, and the prioritization of specific research initiatives. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), as the agency involved here, typically manages a portfolio of research centers across the country, each requiring periodic upgrades or new construction. Analyzing past USDA budget documents and contract awards for similar capital improvement projects would reveal trends in investment levels, types of construction undertaken (e.g., new builds vs. renovations), and the typical contract values for such endeavors. This specific $15 million contract for the USNPRC modernization represents a substantial, but potentially typical, investment for a significant facility upgrade.

How will the performance of M. A. Mortenson Company be evaluated throughout the duration of this multi-year contract?

Performance evaluation for M. A. Mortenson Company will likely be conducted through a formal process managed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or a designated technical point of contact. This typically involves regular progress meetings, site inspections, and reviews of project milestones against the established schedule and technical specifications. Key performance indicators (KPIs) would likely include adherence to the design, quality of workmanship, safety compliance, timely completion of phases, and budget management. The government may utilize a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to document their performance, which can influence future contract awards.

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: TWO STEP

Solicitation ID: AG-3K25-S-17-0003

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: M. a. Mortenson Companies, Inc.

Address: 700 MEADOW LN N, MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 55422

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $149,565,662

Exercised Options: $149,565,662

Current Obligation: $149,565,662

Actual Outlays: $97,776,225

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 78

Total Subaward Amount: $506,756,377

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline