Navy awards $24.7M for PHA wharf repair, highlighting construction sector activity
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $24,693,944 ($24.7M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2017-06-29
End Date: 2019-02-17
Contract Duration: 598 days
Daily Burn Rate: $41.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF X004 CON: DBB REPAIR EXPLOSIVE HANDLING WHARF 1 - PHA
Place of Performance
Location: KINGS BAY, CAMDEN County, GEORGIA, 31547
State: Georgia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $24.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF X004 CON: DBB REPAIR EXPLOSIVE HANDLING WHARF 1 - PHA Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in critical naval infrastructure. 2. The fixed-price nature of the contract aims to control costs for the government. 3. Competition level suggests a healthy market for specialized construction services. 4. Project duration indicates a substantial undertaking requiring extensive planning and execution. 5. Geographic location in Georgia points to regional economic impact and workforce needs.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $24.7 million for wharf repair appears reasonable given the scope of work involving explosive handling facilities. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects for naval infrastructure suggests that pricing is within expected ranges. The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the Department of the Navy, indicating good value for money if the project is completed on time and to specification.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of a single award suggests that M. A. Mortenson Company offered the best value to the government among the competing firms. A competitive bidding process generally leads to more favorable pricing and better quality services for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that drives down costs and encourages innovation among contractors.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy, which receives upgraded and essential infrastructure for explosive handling. The services delivered include the repair and maintenance of a critical wharf facility, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in Georgia, potentially creating local jobs and stimulating the regional economy. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for skilled construction labor, engineers, and project managers in the project's vicinity.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen structural issues arise during repair.
- Risk of schedule delays due to the specialized nature of explosive handling facilities.
- Ensuring compliance with stringent safety regulations for explosive environments.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Award to an experienced contractor with a track record in large construction projects.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust market response.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, specifically focusing on specialized infrastructure for defense applications. The market for such projects is characterized by high barriers to entry due to technical expertise, security clearances, and bonding requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks for naval infrastructure projects of this scale can vary widely based on location, complexity, and specific facility needs.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, will likely manage the majority of the work with its own resources or through larger subcontractors. The absence of small business set-asides means direct opportunities for small businesses may be limited unless they are part of the larger supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the project management team within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring delivery of specified services within the agreed budget. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed project progress reports are usually internal.
Related Government Programs
- Naval Base Construction
- Military Infrastructure Modernization
- Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facilities
- Port and Harbor Improvements
- Department of Defense Facilities Engineering
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays
- Risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions
- Ensuring strict adherence to safety regulations for explosive environments
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, navy, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, georgia, infrastructure, wharf-repair, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $24.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF X004 CON: DBB REPAIR EXPLOSIVE HANDLING WHARF 1 - PHA
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 $24.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2017-06-29. End: 2019-02-17.
What is M. A. Mortenson Company's track record with similar Department of Defense construction contracts?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of performing large-scale construction projects for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Their portfolio includes a variety of complex facilities, often involving specialized requirements similar to those found in naval infrastructure and defense installations. While specific details on past performance for explosive handling facilities are not provided here, their general experience suggests a capability to manage projects of this magnitude and complexity. Reviewing their past performance on similar projects, including any past performance questionnaires or award histories, would provide further insight into their reliability and success rate in meeting cost, schedule, and quality objectives for defense contracts.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or initial budget for this wharf repair project?
The provided data indicates an awarded amount of $24,693,943.73. Without access to the initial budget, estimate, or pre-negotiated cost ceiling for this specific contract, a direct comparison is not possible. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition suggests that the final price was deemed competitive and represented good value by the Department of the Navy. If the contract was a delivery order against a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, the awarded amount would be a specific task order cost. Further analysis would require access to the original solicitation documents or internal government cost estimates to determine if the award was significantly above or below initial projections.
What are the primary risks associated with repairing an explosive handling wharf, and how were they mitigated in this contract?
Repairing an explosive handling wharf presents several significant risks, including structural integrity issues, potential for accidental detonation, environmental hazards, and stringent safety compliance requirements. Mitigation strategies in this contract likely involve detailed site surveys, specialized engineering assessments, adherence to strict safety protocols (e.g., OSHA, DoD explosives safety standards), and robust quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans. The firm-fixed-price contract structure incentivizes the contractor to manage these risks effectively to avoid cost overruns. Additionally, the selection of an experienced contractor like M. A. Mortenson Company, with a demonstrated history in complex construction, suggests a level of confidence in their ability to manage these inherent risks.
What is the historical spending pattern for wharf repair and maintenance at this specific naval facility or within the Navy's broader infrastructure budget?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for wharf repair and maintenance at this specific facility or within the Navy's broader budget requires access to historical contract databases and budget reports. This particular contract, awarded in 2017 for work completed by 2019, represents a significant investment. To understand the pattern, one would need to examine previous contracts for similar work at the same location, as well as aggregate spending on naval infrastructure maintenance across different fiscal years. This would help determine if this $24.7 million award is an outlier, a consistent level of investment, or part of a larger modernization initiative. Such analysis is crucial for long-term budget planning and assessing the overall health of naval infrastructure.
How does the contract duration of 598 days (approximately 20 months) compare to typical project timelines for similar naval infrastructure projects?
A contract duration of 598 days, approximately 20 months, for the repair of an explosive handling wharf is generally considered a substantial timeframe, reflecting the complexity and critical nature of the work. Naval infrastructure projects, especially those involving specialized facilities like explosive handling areas, often require extensive planning, permitting, specialized construction techniques, and rigorous safety protocols, which contribute to longer durations. Compared to standard commercial construction, this timeline is likely longer due to the unique operational requirements and security considerations of a military installation. Benchmarking against similar projects within the Department of Defense or other maritime construction projects would provide a more precise comparison, but the duration appears commensurate with the project's scope and potential challenges.
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
Solicitation ID: N6945012R1260
Offers Received: 1
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: $24,693,944
Exercised Options: $24,693,944
Current Obligation: $24,693,944
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 12
Total Subaward Amount: $30,884,125
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N6945014D1270
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2017-06-29
Current End Date: 2019-02-17
Potential End Date: 2019-02-17 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2023-03-09
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)