DoD awards $19M for Clarksville Base Operations Facility, highlighting construction sector activity
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $19,053,706 ($19.1M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2011-05-05
End Date: 2012-12-07
Contract Duration: 582 days
Daily Burn Rate: $32.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: NEW CLARKSVILLE BASE OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CAMPBELL, TN
Place of Performance
Location: FORT CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN County, KENTUCKY, 42223
State: Kentucky Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $19.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: NEW CLARKSVILLE BASE OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CAMPBELL, TN Key points: 1. Construction project awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company for a new facility at Fort Campbell. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the time of award. 4. The project duration of 582 days suggests a significant construction timeline. 5. The facility is located in Clarksville, Tennessee, impacting local economic development. 6. This award falls within the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The award of $19,053,706 for the Clarksville Base Operations Facility appears reasonable given the scope of constructing a new facility for the Department of Defense. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for military installations would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that pricing was established upfront, which can offer cost certainty for the government. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar facilities, a definitive value-for-money judgment is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and potentially better value for the government. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring taxpayer funds are used efficiently.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and encourage innovation among contractors.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel and operations at Fort Campbell, who will gain a new, modern facility. The project delivers essential infrastructure for base operations, enhancing military readiness and efficiency. The geographic impact is concentrated in the Clarksville, Tennessee area, potentially stimulating local economic activity through construction jobs and related services. The construction workforce, likely including skilled trades and laborers, will be directly impacted by this project.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise.
- Dependence on the contractor's ability to meet the schedule and quality standards.
- Risk of delays impacting operational readiness at Fort Campbell.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
- Experienced contractor likely selected based on qualifications.
Sector Analysis
The construction sector is a significant component of federal spending, particularly for infrastructure projects supporting military bases and government facilities. This award for a base operations facility falls under the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction. Federal spending in this area often involves large, complex projects requiring specialized expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other military construction awards of similar scale and complexity across different branches of the Department of Defense.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if M. A. Mortenson Company has a history of subcontracting with small businesses on projects of this magnitude, which would be crucial for assessing the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting command. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the facility within the agreed-upon cost and schedule. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases, though detailed project progress and inspection reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Projects
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Facilities
- Department of Defense Infrastructure Modernization
- Federal Building Construction Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays
- Risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen conditions
- Quality control during construction
- Impact of weather on construction timeline
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, army, fort-campbell, tennessee, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, large-business, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $19.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. NEW CLARKSVILLE BASE OPERATIONS FACILITY, FT. CAMPBELL, TN
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 Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $19.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-05-05. End: 2012-12-07.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of contracting with the federal government, including numerous awards from the Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes large-scale construction projects for military installations, ranging from barracks and training facilities to research centers and operational buildings. Analyzing their past performance on similar DoD projects, including on-time and on-budget delivery, quality of work, and any past disputes or contract modifications, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise for this specific award. Their extensive experience suggests a strong understanding of federal procurement requirements and military construction standards.
How does the awarded amount compare to similar base operations facility constructions?
Comparing the $19.05 million award for the Clarksville Base Operations Facility to similar projects requires access to a comprehensive database of federal construction contracts. Factors such as facility size (square footage), specific functional requirements (e.g., administrative, logistical, technical), geographic location (which influences labor and material costs), and the year of award all play a crucial role in benchmarking. Generally, large-scale military facility construction can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Without specific details on the facility's scope and size, a precise comparison is difficult, but the awarded amount appears to be within a typical range for a significant single-building construction project on a military installation.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of construction contract?
The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price construction contract include potential cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions or material price escalations occur beyond what was reasonably anticipated during bidding. Schedule delays are another significant risk, stemming from weather, labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, or design issues, which could impact the operational readiness of Fort Campbell. Quality control is also a risk, ensuring the facility meets all DoD specifications and standards. The government's risk is somewhat mitigated by the fixed-price nature, but managing scope creep and ensuring timely completion requires diligent oversight.
How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction projects?
Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money in large construction projects. By allowing all responsible contractors to bid, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value proposals. This process increases the likelihood that the government will receive high-quality construction services at a fair and reasonable price. While it requires more administrative effort to manage the bidding process, the potential savings and improved outcomes typically outweigh these costs. The presence of multiple bidders, as indicated by the two bids received here, suggests that the competition mechanism was at least partially effective.
What is the historical spending trend for similar base operations facilities at Fort Campbell or within the Army?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar base operations facilities at Fort Campbell or within the broader U.S. Army requires access to detailed historical contract data. This would involve identifying past awards for construction of administrative buildings, logistical hubs, or other operational support facilities on Army posts over several fiscal years. Trends might reveal patterns in average contract values, typical durations, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-plus). Understanding these trends can help assess whether the current $19.05 million award is consistent with historical investment levels or represents a significant deviation, potentially indicating changes in construction costs, facility requirements, or program priorities.
What are the implications of the contract duration (582 days) on project completion and cost?
A contract duration of 582 days (approximately 1.6 years) for a major construction project like a base operations facility is substantial and has several implications. It suggests a complex scope of work, potentially involving significant site preparation, foundation work, structural erection, and interior finishing. Longer durations can increase indirect costs for both the contractor (e.g., project management, site overhead) and potentially the government (e.g., extended oversight). However, a well-planned longer duration can also allow for more thorough execution, better quality control, and reduced risk of rushed work, which could ultimately lead to a more durable and cost-effective facility in the long run. It also implies a significant lead time before the facility can be fully operational.
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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: M. a. Mortenson Companies, Inc. (UEI: 130731797)
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: $19,053,706
Exercised Options: $19,053,706
Current Obligation: $19,053,706
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 18
Total Subaward Amount: $13,456,743
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W912HN08D0021
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2011-05-05
Current End Date: 2012-12-07
Potential End Date: 2012-12-07 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-04-29
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)