M. A. Mortenson Company awarded $26.5M for Navy design-build project in North Carolina
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $26,464,626 ($26.5M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2016-08-31
End Date: 2019-01-29
Contract Duration: 881 days
Daily Burn Rate: $30.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 10
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF, DESIGN BUILD P 194 ITEM 0001- BASE PRICE
Place of Performance
Location: CHERRY POINT, CRAVEN County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28533
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $26.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF, DESIGN BUILD P 194 ITEM 0001- BASE PRICE 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 contractor assumes the risk for cost overruns. 3. The project duration of 881 days suggests a significant undertaking requiring substantial contractor resources. 4. The contract was awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company, a known entity in the construction sector. 5. The project falls under commercial and institutional building construction, a common category for federal spending. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this was not specifically targeted for small businesses.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $26.5 million for a design-build project of this scope appears reasonable, especially given the firm-fixed-price structure which shifts cost risk to the contractor. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the absence of detailed cost breakdowns makes a granular comparison difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 10 bidders indicates a healthy level of competition for this project. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently, as multiple companies vied to offer their best pricing and technical solutions.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy, receiving a new or improved facility. The project delivers construction services, likely involving the creation or renovation of a significant building. The geographic impact is localized to North Carolina, where the construction will take place. The project will likely create jobs in the construction sector within the local North Carolina workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, although mitigated by firm-fixed-price.
- Delays in project completion could impact the Navy's operational readiness or facility utilization.
- Quality control during construction is crucial to ensure the facility meets long-term performance standards.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, protecting the government from unexpected expenses.
- Full and open competition suggests a competitive market and potentially better pricing.
- The contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, likely has a track record in large-scale construction projects.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the federal contracting landscape. The Department of Defense is a major client in this sector, frequently awarding design-build contracts for infrastructure and facilities. The $26.5 million award is substantial, placing it in the mid-to-large range for individual construction projects within this category.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses indicated by the provided data (SB: false, ST: NC). This means that while M. A. Mortenson Company may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses, there is no explicit mandate. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore indirect, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and relevant project managers within the Department of the Navy. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract simplifies some aspects of financial oversight, focusing more on schedule adherence and quality of work. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, but detailed project progress reports are usually internal.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Facilities Construction
- Navy Base Infrastructure Projects
- Design-Build Contracts
- Commercial Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for scope creep if initial design is not fully detailed.
- Contractor performance risk, though mitigated by FFP.
- Dependency on local labor and material availability in North Carolina.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction, north-carolina, large-contract, design-build
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $26.5 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF, DESIGN BUILD P 194 ITEM 0001- BASE PRICE
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 $26.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2016-08-31. End: 2019-01-29.
What is the historical spending pattern for M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense?
Analyzing the historical spending patterns for M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. Generally, large construction firms like M. A. Mortenson Company often secure multiple contracts with agencies like the DoD over time, particularly for infrastructure and facility development. The value and frequency of these awards can indicate the company's established relationship and performance record with the agency. Without specific historical data for this contractor and agency, it's difficult to provide a precise pattern, but it's reasonable to assume that a company winning a $26.5 million contract has a significant prior engagement history.
How does the $26.5 million award compare to similar design-build projects for the Navy?
The $26.5 million award for this design-build project is a substantial figure, typical for significant facility construction or renovation efforts. To benchmark effectively, one would compare it to other design-build contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy or other military branches for similar types of facilities (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, training centers) and in comparable geographic regions. Factors such as project complexity, square footage, specific design requirements, and prevailing construction costs in the region influence the price. A preliminary assessment suggests this value is within a reasonable range for a project of this nature, especially considering the firm-fixed-price structure which places cost risk on the contractor.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely used to assess the success of this contract?
Key performance indicators for this design-build contract would likely focus on several critical areas. Schedule adherence is paramount, ensuring the project is completed within the 881-day timeframe. Quality of construction, meeting all specified design and building codes, is another crucial KPI, often assessed through inspections and testing. Cost control, while largely managed by the contractor due to the firm-fixed-price nature, would still be monitored for any potential change orders or claims. Furthermore, safety performance on the job site, measured by incident rates, is a vital indicator. Finally, the overall functionality and usability of the completed facility according to the Navy's requirements would be the ultimate measure of success.
What is the risk profile associated with a firm-fixed-price, full-and-open competition contract of this magnitude?
A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract generally shifts the majority of cost risk to the contractor, making it attractive for the government when project scope is well-defined. The primary risks for the government in an FFP contract are potential quality compromises if the contractor seeks to cut costs, or contractor default. For a full-and-open competition, the risk of overpaying is reduced due to market forces, but the government still needs to ensure the winning bid represents good value. The magnitude of $26.5 million means that any contractor failure or significant quality issue could have a substantial impact on the Navy's facility plans and potentially require significant effort to rectify or re-contract.
How does the 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' classification influence the oversight and execution of this contract?
The classification 'Commercial and Institutional Building Construction' indicates that the project involves the erection or renovation of buildings intended for non-residential, non-industrial purposes, such as offices, schools, hospitals, or government facilities. This classification typically means the project will adhere to standard building codes (e.g., IBC, NFPA) and may involve complex systems like HVAC, electrical, and plumbing. Oversight will focus on ensuring compliance with these codes, the specific design requirements, and project management best practices common in the commercial construction sector. The execution will involve a range of skilled trades and materials typical for such structures, with an emphasis on durability, functionality, and safety.
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: N4008516R5506
Offers Received: 10
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: $26,464,626
Exercised Options: $26,464,626
Current Obligation: $26,464,626
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 68
Total Subaward Amount: $42,005,997
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2016-08-31
Current End Date: 2019-01-29
Potential End Date: 2019-01-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-04-21
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)