Tutor Perini Corp awarded $29.7M for Cadet Field House repair; contract completed on time

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,685,645 ($29.7M)

Contractor: Tutor Perini Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-09-19

End Date: 2020-11-30

Contract Duration: 803 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR CADET FIELD HOUSE, PH 1

Place of Performance

Location: USAF ACADEMY, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80840

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.7 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR CADET FIELD HOUSE, PH 1 Key points: 1. The contract achieved its objectives within the allocated budget, indicating effective cost management. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust market response, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The definitive contract type with a firm fixed price offers predictability for both parties. 4. Performance was completed within the scheduled duration, demonstrating efficient project execution. 5. The project falls within the broader category of commercial and institutional building construction. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting the primary awardee was not a small business.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $29.7 million for building construction appears reasonable given the scope of repairing a field house. Benchmarking against similar large-scale construction projects would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed significant risk for cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government when managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 5 bidders, the competition level suggests a healthy interest in the project. This level of competition is generally expected to drive down prices and ensure the government receives fair market value.

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 scenario.

Public Impact

Military personnel and cadets benefit from improved training and recreational facilities at the field house. The project delivered essential repairs and upgrades to a significant institutional building. The geographic impact is localized to the facility where the repairs were conducted. The construction services provided likely supported a workforce of skilled tradespeople and laborers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government and private sector needs for facility maintenance, renovation, and new builds. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar military facility repairs would indicate if this contract's value is in line with industry norms.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor, Tutor Perini Corporation, is a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The absence of a set-aside suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall bid from the available market.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, which has established oversight mechanisms for construction projects. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor's performance and cost management. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-business, facility-repair, colorado, commercial-and-institutional-building-construction

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.7 million to TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION. IGF::OT::IGF REPAIR CADET FIELD HOUSE, PH 1

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-09-19. End: 2020-11-30.

What is the track record of Tutor Perini Corporation with the Department of Defense?

Tutor Perini Corporation has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense across various projects. While this specific contract for the Cadet Field House repair was completed successfully, a comprehensive review would involve examining their performance on other DoD contracts, including any instances of cost overruns, schedule delays, or quality issues. Their overall performance profile with the DoD can be assessed by analyzing contract completion rates, award values, and any documented disputes or contract modifications. Larger federal contract databases often provide detailed historical data on contractor performance, which is crucial for understanding their reliability and expertise in executing government projects.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar field house repair projects?

Directly comparing the $29.7 million value of this Cadet Field House repair to similar projects requires access to a database of comparable federal or even large-scale commercial construction projects. Factors such as the size of the facility, the extent of the repairs (e.g., structural, cosmetic, systems upgrades), geographic location (which impacts labor and material costs), and the specific year of the contract award all influence project costs. Without specific data on comparable projects, it's difficult to definitively benchmark the value. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests that the pricing was likely competitive within its specific market context at the time of award.

What were the primary risks associated with this construction contract, and how were they managed?

The primary risks associated with a construction contract of this nature typically include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., discovering hazardous materials, unexpected structural issues), potential for cost overruns due to fluctuating material prices or labor shortages, and schedule delays caused by weather, supply chain disruptions, or contractor performance issues. This contract utilized a firm fixed-price (FFP) award type, which is a key risk management strategy. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the majority of the financial risk for cost overruns, incentivizing them to manage costs effectively and complete the project within budget. The contract's completion within the scheduled duration (803 days) suggests that the contractor successfully managed schedule-related risks.

How effective was the competition for this contract in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' with five bidders, which is a strong indicator of effective competition. This process allows any responsible contractor to submit a bid, fostering a competitive environment. When multiple bidders vie for a contract, they are incentivized to offer their best pricing and technical solutions to win the award. The presence of five bidders suggests sufficient market interest and capability. This level of competition generally leads to price discovery and helps ensure that the government secures goods or services at a fair and reasonable price, thereby maximizing value for taxpayers. The absence of significant contract modifications or disputes further supports the notion that the competitive process yielded a suitable outcome.

What is the historical spending pattern for facility repairs at this specific military installation or for similar facilities?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for facility repairs at the specific installation where the Cadet Field House is located, or for comparable military training or athletic facilities, would provide valuable context. This involves examining past contracts for maintenance, repair, and renovation of similar structures over several years. Key metrics to consider include the frequency of repair contracts, their average value, the types of work performed, and the contractors typically awarded these contracts. Understanding these patterns can reveal trends in maintenance needs, identify potential infrastructure aging issues, and help assess whether the current contract's value aligns with historical investment levels. Without access to specific installation or broader DoD facility repair spending data, a precise historical comparison cannot be made.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9128F18R0044

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 15901 OLDEN ST, SYLMAR, CA, 91342

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,685,645

Exercised Options: $29,685,645

Current Obligation: $29,685,645

Actual Outlays: $1,976,418

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2018-09-19

Current End Date: 2020-11-30

Potential End Date: 2020-11-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-02-22

More Contracts from Tutor Perini Corporation

View all Tutor Perini Corporation federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending