Navy awards $68M construction contract to M. A. Mortenson Company for building construction in North Carolina
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $67,996,601 ($68.0M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2012-05-29
End Date: 2015-08-11
Contract Duration: 1,169 days
Daily Burn Rate: $58.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 18
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: BASE BID, AWARD DOCUMENT
Place of Performance
Location: CAMP LEJEUNE, ONSLOW County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28547
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $68.0 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: BASE BID, AWARD DOCUMENT Key points: 1. The contract was awarded using full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the time of award, transferring some risk to the contractor. 3. The contract duration of 1169 days points to a significant, long-term construction project. 4. The award value of approximately $68 million represents a substantial investment in infrastructure. 5. The contract was awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company, a known entity in the construction sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The award value of $68 million for a definitive contract of this duration appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale construction projects. Benchmarking against similar commercial and institutional building construction contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy or other federal agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that pricing was established upfront, which can be advantageous for the government if costs are well-managed by the contractor.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 18 bids suggests a healthy level of competition for this project. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions, benefiting the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. It ensures that the government is receiving the best possible value through market forces.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy, which will receive new or improved facilities. The contract delivers commercial and institutional building construction services. The geographic impact is focused on North Carolina, where the construction will take place. The project will likely create jobs in the construction sector and related industries in the local North Carolina economy.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if the firm fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen construction challenges.
- Delays in project completion could impact the Navy's operational readiness or facility needs.
- Quality control issues during construction could lead to long-term maintenance problems.
Positive Signals
- The use of full and open competition with 18 bidders suggests a strong likelihood of competitive pricing.
- The firm fixed-price contract type incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently.
- The long contract duration allows for thorough planning and execution of a complex construction project.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the average cost per square foot or per project for similar military or government building construction across different regions and agencies.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. Without specific subcontracting goals, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is limited, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Navy program office. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified construction within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific oversight details are not provided.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
- Department of Defense Construction Projects
- Federal Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays
- Risk of cost overruns
- Quality control concerns
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, north-carolina, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, large-contract, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $68.0 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. BASE BID, AWARD DOCUMENT
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 $68.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2012-05-29. End: 2015-08-11.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with federal construction contracts?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of performing federal construction contracts across various agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes large-scale projects such as barracks, research facilities, and administrative buildings. Analyzing their past performance ratings, any documented disputes or claims, and the types of contracts they have successfully completed would provide a comprehensive view of their capabilities and reliability. Their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and projects of similar magnitude suggests a strong capacity to manage this particular award.
How does the award value compare to similar construction projects in North Carolina?
To assess the value, we would need to compare this $68 million award to similar commercial and institutional building construction projects undertaken by the Navy or other federal entities in North Carolina or comparable regions. Key metrics for comparison include cost per square foot, cost per building type, and project complexity. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state if this award represents excellent or fair value. However, the competitive nature of the award (18 bids) suggests that the pricing is likely market-driven and competitive.
What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price construction contract?
The primary risks with a firm fixed-price contract, especially for a large construction project, include potential cost overruns if the contractor underestimates expenses or encounters unforeseen site conditions, and schedule delays. The contractor bears the financial risk, but if significant issues arise, it could lead to disputes or a push for change orders. For the government, the risk lies in potentially paying a premium if the contractor's initial bid was overly conservative due to perceived risks, or if the contractor struggles to deliver quality work on time and within budget, impacting the intended use of the facility.
How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for this type of construction contract?
Full and open competition is generally considered highly effective in ensuring value for large construction contracts. By allowing all responsible bidders to participate, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The fact that 18 bids were received for this contract indicates a robust competition, which strongly suggests that the government secured a competitive price. This process minimizes the risk of contractor selection based on factors other than price and technical merit, thereby maximizing taxpayer value.
What is the historical spending pattern for commercial and institutional building construction by the Department of the Navy?
Historical spending by the Department of the Navy on commercial and institutional building construction is substantial, reflecting the continuous need to build, renovate, and maintain its vast infrastructure. Annual spending can fluctuate based on military readiness requirements, budget allocations, and specific modernization initiatives. Analyzing past fiscal years would reveal trends in contract values, types of construction, and geographic distribution. This contract represents one component of that broader spending pattern, contributing to the overall investment in naval facilities.
Are there any specific performance metrics or quality standards outlined in the contract?
While the provided data does not detail specific performance metrics or quality standards, federal construction contracts typically include extensive specifications and requirements. These often reference industry standards (e.g., by the American Society for Testing and Materials - ASTM), building codes, and agency-specific guidelines. Performance is usually monitored through regular site inspections, progress reports, and adherence to the project schedule and budget. Final acceptance is contingent upon meeting all specified quality and performance criteria, often documented through a Certificate of Occupancy and final inspections.
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
Solicitation ID: N4008511R4024
Offers Received: 18
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: $67,996,601
Exercised Options: $67,996,601
Current Obligation: $67,996,601
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 29
Total Subaward Amount: $13,989,668
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2012-05-29
Current End Date: 2015-08-11
Potential End Date: 2015-08-11 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-07-29
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)