M. A. Mortenson Company awarded $44.6M for Coronado naval base facility construction, completed under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $44,605,431 ($44.6M)

Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-09-28

End Date: 2020-11-20

Contract Duration: 1,149 days

Daily Burn Rate: $38.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF Q966 SOF TRADET ONE OPS FACILITY COASTAL CAMPUS, NAVAL BASE CORONADO, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92155

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $44.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Q966 SOF TRADET ONE OPS FACILITY COASTAL CAMPUS, NAVAL BASE CORONADO, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA Key points: 1. The contract was awarded using a firm-fixed-price structure, indicating a clear understanding of project scope and cost. 2. Completion within the estimated duration suggests effective project management and execution. 3. The project was awarded through full and open competition, implying a robust bidding process. 4. The contract's value falls within a typical range for large-scale institutional construction projects. 5. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further examination of subcontracting opportunities. 6. The project's successful completion indicates a positive performance track record for the contractor on this specific task.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $44.6 million for a naval base facility aligns with industry benchmarks for similar large-scale construction projects. While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the firm-fixed-price award suggests that the government secured a defined cost for the scope of work. Benchmarking against other Department of the Navy construction contracts of similar complexity and scale would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The successful completion within the timeframe is a positive indicator of efficient resource utilization.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of four bidders (no) suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant construction project. This competitive environment is generally expected to drive down prices and encourage innovation, leading to better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process likely resulted in a more competitive bid, potentially saving taxpayer dollars compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Navy personnel and operations at Naval Base Coronado, who will utilize the new facility. The services delivered include the construction of a new operations facility, enhancing military readiness and capabilities. The geographic impact is localized to Coronado, California, supporting the infrastructure needs of a key naval installation. The project likely involved a significant construction workforce, contributing to employment in the local and regional economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

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 military infrastructure, government facilities, and public works. The market is characterized by large, complex projects requiring specialized expertise and adherence to stringent government regulations. Comparable spending benchmarks for military construction projects of this scale can vary widely based on location, complexity, and specific requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests the primary award was made to a large business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if M. A. Mortenson Company has subcontracting plans that include small businesses. The absence of explicit set-asides could mean fewer direct opportunities for small businesses as prime contractors on this specific project, though they may still participate as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and facilities management departments. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of the specified facility. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, naval-base-coronado, california, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, institutional-building, operations-facility, infrastructure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $44.6 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF Q966 SOF TRADET ONE OPS FACILITY COASTAL CAMPUS, NAVAL BASE CORONADO, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

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 $44.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-28. End: 2020-11-20.

What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with the Department of Defense?

M. A. Mortenson Company has a history of working with the Department of Defense on various construction projects. While this specific contract was for $44.6 million and involved building an operations facility, their portfolio often includes large-scale institutional and military construction. Analyzing their past performance on similar DoD contracts, including any past performance evaluations or awards, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise. Information on contract modifications, claims, or disputes on previous DoD projects would also be relevant for assessing their track record.

How does the $44.6 million contract value compare to similar naval base facility construction projects?

The $44.6 million contract value for the operations facility at Naval Base Coronado appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale institutional construction projects, particularly those on military installations. However, a precise comparison requires benchmarking against projects with similar scope, complexity, location, and construction type. Factors such as site conditions, specific technological requirements for the facility, and prevailing labor and material costs in Southern California would influence the final price. Without detailed project specifications, it's challenging to definitively state if this represents exceptional value, but it does not appear to be an outlier based on the available high-level data.

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 arise, material price escalations beyond initial estimates, or labor shortages impacting project timelines. For the government, the risk lies in ensuring the contractor delivers the facility to the specified quality standards and within the agreed-upon timeframe. Delays or defects could impact naval operations. The contractor bears the financial risk if costs exceed the fixed price. Effective project management, contingency planning, and robust oversight are crucial to mitigating these risks.

How effective was the full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The full and open competition for this $44.6 million construction contract is a strong indicator that taxpayers likely received competitive pricing. By allowing all responsible sources to submit bids, the Department of the Navy fostered a market-driven environment where multiple companies vied for the project. This typically leads to lower bid prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions. The fact that four bids were received suggests sufficient market interest and competition. While the final price is fixed, the competitive process itself is a key mechanism for ensuring value and preventing inflated costs.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar facilities at Naval Base Coronado?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar facilities at Naval Base Coronado would provide context for the $44.6 million award. This would involve examining past construction contracts for operations facilities, training centers, or other institutional buildings at the base over the last 5-10 years. Key metrics to consider would be contract values, duration, competition levels, and any significant modifications or cost changes. Understanding this historical data can help determine if current spending is consistent with past investments, if costs have escalated, or if this project represents a significant new investment in base infrastructure.

What are the implications of the contract duration (1149 days) on project delivery?

The contract duration of 1149 days (approximately 3.15 years) for the construction of the operations facility at Naval Base Coronado suggests a substantial and complex project. This timeframe allows for detailed planning, procurement of materials, execution of construction phases, and necessary inspections and commissioning. A longer duration can sometimes indicate a more thorough approach to quality and safety, but it also increases the potential for market fluctuations (e.g., material costs) and project management challenges. The fact that the contract was completed within this duration is a positive sign of effective execution and adherence to the planned schedule.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ConstructionNonresidential Building ConstructionCommercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIESCONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N6247316R3201

Offers Received: 4

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: $44,605,431

Exercised Options: $44,605,431

Current Obligation: $44,605,431

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 94

Total Subaward Amount: $84,308,065

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247317D0819

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2017-09-28

Current End Date: 2020-11-20

Potential End Date: 2020-11-20 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-03-08

More Contracts from M. a. Mortenson Company

View all M. a. Mortenson Company federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending