DoD awards $75M construction contract for security campus in Nebraska, with 10 bids received
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $75,076,961 ($75.1M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2022-08-10
End Date: 2025-07-11
Contract Duration: 1,066 days
Daily Burn Rate: $70.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 10
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: CONSTRUCT SECURITY CAMPUS
Place of Performance
Location: BELLEVUE, SARPY County, NEBRASKA, 68005
State: Nebraska Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $75.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: CONSTRUCT SECURITY CAMPUS Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of a large security campus construction project. 2. Strong competition with 10 bidders suggests a healthy market for this type of construction. 3. Fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Project duration of nearly three years indicates a significant undertaking. 5. The contract is positioned within the broader defense infrastructure development sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The $75 million contract for constructing a security campus is a substantial investment. Benchmarking against similar large-scale federal construction projects, the price appears competitive, especially considering the specialized nature of a security campus. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for value. The number of bids received (10) further supports the assessment that the pricing is likely aligned with market rates.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The receipt of 10 bids suggests a robust level of interest and a competitive marketplace for this type of construction service. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The strong competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are likely being used efficiently, as multiple companies vied to offer the best value. This process helps prevent inflated pricing and encourages cost-effective solutions.
Public Impact
The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving a new security campus. The contract will result in the construction of significant physical infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Nebraska, potentially creating local construction jobs. The project will likely involve a substantial workforce of construction laborers and specialists.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for construction delays impacting operational readiness.
- Ensuring compliance with stringent security and construction standards.
- Managing the environmental impact of a large construction site.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract limits cost escalation.
- Robust competition suggests market validation of the proposed cost.
- Clear project scope for security campus construction.
Sector Analysis
The construction sector, particularly for large-scale institutional and government facilities, is a significant part of the federal contracting landscape. This contract falls within the commercial and institutional building construction sub-sector. Federal spending in this area often supports national security infrastructure, military base improvements, and specialized government facilities. Comparable projects include the construction of courthouses, federal office buildings, and other secure government installations, which typically involve multi-million dollar budgets.
Small Business Impact
The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is M. A. Mortenson Company, a large entity, there is potential for subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the construction trades and material supply. The extent of small business participation will depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and the availability of qualified small businesses for specific tasks.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract is subject to standard federal oversight mechanisms for construction projects, including regular site inspections, progress reporting, and quality assurance checks. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight by locking in costs. Accountability will be managed through contract milestones and deliverables. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Department of Defense Facilities
- Federal Building Construction
- Security Infrastructure Projects
Risk Flags
- Potential for construction delays
- Ensuring compliance with security standards
- Managing environmental impact
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, nebraska, large-contract, infrastructure, security-facilities
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $75.1 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. CONSTRUCT SECURITY CAMPUS
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 $75.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2022-08-10. End: 2025-07-11.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company in performing large-scale federal construction contracts?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of performing large-scale construction projects, including many for federal agencies. Their portfolio often includes complex facilities such as laboratories, healthcare centers, and educational institutions. While specific data on their federal contract performance history would require a deeper dive into contract databases, their selection for a $75 million Department of Defense project suggests a demonstrated capability and a positive track record in handling projects of this magnitude and complexity. They are generally recognized as a reputable contractor in the industry.
How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated value or budget for this security campus?
The provided data does not include the government's initial estimate or budget for this project. However, the fact that the contract was awarded under full and open competition with 10 bids suggests that the awarded amount of $75,076,961 is likely competitive and within a reasonable range of what the market would bear for such a project. Without the government's estimate, a direct comparison is not possible, but the competitive bidding process serves as a proxy for value assessment.
What are the primary risks associated with a large construction project of this nature?
Key risks for a large construction project like this security campus include potential construction delays due to weather, unforeseen site conditions, labor shortages, or supply chain disruptions. Cost escalation is generally mitigated by the firm fixed-price contract, but scope creep or change orders could still impact the final cost if not managed carefully. Ensuring adherence to stringent security requirements and building codes presents a technical risk. Furthermore, managing the environmental impact and ensuring site safety are ongoing risks that require diligent oversight.
What is the expected effectiveness of the completed security campus in meeting DoD's operational needs?
The effectiveness of the completed security campus will depend on its design, construction quality, and how well it integrates with the Department of Defense's operational requirements. As a security campus, it is likely intended to enhance force protection, provide secure working environments, and potentially house critical assets or personnel. The firm fixed-price contract and the competitive bidding process suggest that the project is intended to deliver a functional and compliant facility. Post-construction evaluation and operational feedback will ultimately determine its effectiveness.
What have been historical spending patterns for similar security campus constructions by the DoD?
Historical spending on similar security campus constructions by the DoD can vary widely based on size, location, specific security features, and the prevailing economic conditions at the time of award. Projects of this scale (around $75 million) are not uncommon for major military installations or new strategic facilities. Factors like inflation, material costs, and labor rates over time influence these figures. Analyzing past contracts for comparable facilities would reveal trends in cost per square foot, duration, and the number of bidders, providing context for the current award.
Are there any specific performance metrics or KPIs defined in the contract for the construction phase?
The provided data does not detail specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the construction phase beyond standard contract requirements. Typically, firm fixed-price construction contracts focus on adherence to the schedule, quality of workmanship, compliance with specifications and drawings, and safety protocols. Detailed performance metrics are often outlined in the contract's statement of work or performance work statement, which are not included here. Progress payments are usually tied to the achievement of defined milestones.
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: W9128F21R0054
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: $75,800,961
Exercised Options: $75,076,961
Current Obligation: $75,076,961
Actual Outlays: $14,686,334
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 17
Total Subaward Amount: $37,542,694
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2022-08-10
Current End Date: 2025-07-11
Potential End Date: 2025-07-11 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-06-13
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)