M. A. Mortenson Company awarded $66M contract for Fort Carson facility operations, highlighting construction sector activity
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $66,017,340 ($66.0M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-09-29
End Date: 2008-04-16
Contract Duration: 565 days
Daily Burn Rate: $116.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 9
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: COMPANY OPERATIONS FACITLITY, FORT CARSON, COLORADO
Place of Performance
Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80913
State: Colorado Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $66.0 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: COMPANY OPERATIONS FACITLITY, FORT CARSON, COLORADO Key points: 1. Contract value of $66 million indicates significant investment in infrastructure. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding environment. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 4. Contract duration of 565 days points to a substantial project timeline. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, reflecting defense infrastructure needs. 6. Geographic focus on Colorado highlights regional construction market engagement.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $66 million for facility operations and construction at Fort Carson appears reasonable given the scope of work typically involved in such projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale military construction contracts would provide a more precise assessment, but the fixed-price nature suggests an effort to establish cost certainty. The number of bidders (9) also implies a healthy level of interest and potential for competitive pricing.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with nine bids received. This indicates a robust bidding process where multiple qualified contractors had the opportunity to compete. The presence of numerous bidders generally fosters price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government compared to limited or sole-source procurements.
Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down the final price through competitive pressures, ensuring a better value for the allocated funds.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and military personnel stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, who will utilize the improved facilities. The contract delivers essential construction and operational services for a significant military installation. The geographic impact is concentrated in Colorado Springs, Colorado, supporting the local economy through construction activities. Workforce implications include job creation for construction workers, engineers, project managers, and support staff in the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen construction challenges arise, despite the fixed-price contract.
- Ensuring timely completion within the 565-day duration is critical to avoid operational disruptions.
- Quality control and adherence to specifications for military facilities require rigorous oversight.
Positive Signals
- The fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a strong market response and potential for competitive pricing.
- The contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, has a track record in large-scale construction projects.
Sector Analysis
The construction sector, particularly heavy and civil engineering construction, is a vital component of federal spending, especially for infrastructure development and maintenance at military installations. This contract falls within the broader category of non-residential building construction. Federal spending in this area is often driven by modernization efforts, capacity expansion, and facility upkeep. Comparable benchmarks would involve analyzing other large construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar types of facilities.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, is a large firm. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were mandated or pursued, which could impact the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by the Department of the Army contracting officers and project managers. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed operational oversight specifics are typically internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction Program
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) projects
- Department of Defense Facilities Management
- Federal Building and Infrastructure Projects
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions.
- Risk of schedule delays impacting operational readiness.
- Ensuring quality and compliance with military specifications.
- Contractor performance and capacity to manage large-scale projects.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, fort-carson, colorado, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, heavy-and-civil-engineering-construction, large-contract, infrastructure, facility-operations
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $66.0 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. COMPANY OPERATIONS FACITLITY, FORT CARSON, COLORADO
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 $66.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-09-29. End: 2008-04-16.
What is M. A. Mortenson Company's track record with federal construction contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of performing large-scale construction projects for various federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes complex projects such as military barracks, training facilities, research laboratories, and infrastructure upgrades. Reviewing their past performance ratings, any contract disputes, and the scale of previously completed federal projects would provide a comprehensive understanding of their capabilities and reliability. Data from contract databases often shows a pattern of successful awards and completions, though specific details on performance metrics for individual contracts would require deeper investigation.
How does the $66 million contract value compare to similar facility operations and construction projects at other military bases?
Comparing the $66 million contract value requires identifying similar projects in terms of scope, scale, and location. Projects involving new construction of major facilities (e.g., barracks, administrative buildings, maintenance depots) at comparable military installations would serve as benchmarks. Factors such as the specific type of facility, the complexity of construction, the prevailing labor and material costs in the region, and the contract duration all influence the total value. A preliminary assessment suggests that $66 million is a substantial sum, indicative of a significant construction undertaking, but its relative value can only be definitively assessed against a dataset of comparable federal construction awards.
What are the primary risk indicators associated with this type of fixed-price construction contract for the government?
The primary risk indicator for the government in a fixed-price contract is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if costs escalate unexpectedly. While the fixed price aims to cap the government's expenditure, unforeseen site conditions, design changes, or material price volatility can strain the contractor's ability to deliver as specified without compromising quality. Robust government oversight, clear performance metrics, and stringent quality assurance protocols are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure the facility is built to required standards.
How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring value for money for this specific contract?
The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered highly effective in ensuring value for money because it maximizes the pool of potential bidders, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. With nine bidders vying for this $66 million contract, the government benefits from a wide range of proposals and pricing structures. This competitive pressure incentivizes bidders to offer their best terms and prices to secure the award. The success in achieving value for money is further contingent on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the thoroughness of the evaluation process.
What are the historical spending patterns for facility operations and construction at Fort Carson or similar Army installations?
Historical spending patterns for facility operations and construction at Fort Carson and similar Army installations typically show consistent investment in maintaining and upgrading infrastructure to support military readiness and personnel. This includes periodic major construction projects, routine maintenance, and specialized upgrades. Analyzing past budgets and contract awards for Fort Carson would reveal trends in spending levels, types of projects undertaken, and the average contract values. Such analysis helps in contextualizing the current $66 million award within the broader financial landscape of Army base infrastructure management.
What are the implications of the contract duration (565 days) on project management and potential cost impacts?
A contract duration of 565 days (approximately 1.5 years) for a $66 million construction project suggests a moderately complex undertaking. This duration allows for detailed planning, execution, and potential contingencies. However, longer durations also increase exposure to risks such as inflation, changes in regulatory requirements, and potential contractor performance issues. Effective project management is crucial to ensure adherence to the schedule, control costs, and maintain quality throughout the project lifecycle. Delays beyond the planned duration could lead to increased costs for both the contractor and the government, depending on the contract's clauses regarding extensions and cost impacts.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 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: W9128F06R0024
Offers Received: 9
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, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $67,192,127
Exercised Options: $67,192,127
Current Obligation: $66,017,340
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-09-29
Current End Date: 2008-04-16
Potential End Date: 2008-04-16 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2009-02-12
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)