DoD's $74.7M Brigade Complex Construction Contract Awarded to M. A. Mortenson Company
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $74,679,345 ($74.7M)
Contractor: M. a. Mortenson Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2007-06-13
End Date: 2010-08-01
Contract Duration: 1,145 days
Daily Burn Rate: $65.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: FY07 BRIGADE COMPLEX FLW
Place of Performance
Location: FORT LEWIS, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $74.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY for work described as: FY07 BRIGADE COMPLEX FLW Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract value of $74.7 million falls within a typical range for large-scale construction projects. 3. Fixed-price contract type may limit cost overruns for the government, but requires careful initial pricing. 4. The project duration of approximately 3 years indicates a significant construction undertaking. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, this project likely supports military readiness and infrastructure. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is not a small business.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $74.7 million for a brigade complex is substantial, typical for major military construction. Benchmarking against similar large-scale DoD construction projects would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor bears most of the risk for cost overruns, which can be advantageous for the government if the initial price is competitive. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar facilities, a definitive value assessment is challenging.
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 presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant construction project. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing, but two bids can still result in a fair market price, especially for specialized or large-scale projects where the pool of qualified contractors is naturally limited.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage efficiency. While only two bids were received, the process itself aims to ensure the government secures the best value through a transparent bidding system.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the new brigade complex. The contract delivers essential infrastructure for military operations and troop housing. The geographic impact is localized to the area where the brigade complex is constructed, likely within Washington state given the 'SN' code. The project will likely create numerous jobs in the construction sector, including skilled trades and support staff.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if initial pricing was not sufficiently competitive under the fixed-price contract.
- Dependence on a single prime contractor for a large-scale project introduces execution risk.
- The limited number of bidders (two) might indicate potential barriers to entry for other qualified firms or a concentrated market.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, promoting a fair bidding process.
- Firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
- The project addresses critical military infrastructure needs, supporting operational readiness.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the broader construction industry. Large-scale government projects like this often represent substantial portions of revenue for major construction firms. The market for military construction is specialized, requiring adherence to stringent security, design, and material standards. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large military facility construction contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and the prime contractor (M. A. Mortenson Company) is likely not a small business. This suggests that subcontracting opportunities may exist for small businesses to participate in various aspects of the construction project. The extent of small business participation would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and the specific needs of the project.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. Accountability measures would include adherence to contract specifications, delivery schedules, and quality standards. Transparency is facilitated through the federal procurement data system where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction (MILCON)
- Department of Defense Facilities
- Army Corps of Engineers Projects
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related construction
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost escalation if initial fixed-price bid was too low.
- Risk of contractor performance issues impacting schedule or quality.
- Limited competition (2 bidders) may warrant scrutiny of price reasonableness.
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, military-infrastructure, washington, commercial-institutional-building-construction, fy07-brigade-complex-flw
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $74.7 million to M. A. MORTENSON COMPANY. FY07 BRIGADE COMPLEX FLW
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 $74.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-06-13. End: 2010-08-01.
What is the track record of M. A. Mortenson Company with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?
M. A. Mortenson Company has a significant history of federal contracting, including numerous awards with the Department of Defense and other agencies. Their portfolio often includes large-scale construction and renovation projects for military installations, research facilities, and government buildings. Analyzing their past performance on similar projects, including any reported issues or successes, provides insight into their capability to execute this brigade complex contract. Federal procurement databases would detail their award history, contract values, and performance ratings, which are crucial for assessing their reliability and expertise in delivering complex military infrastructure on time and within budget.
How does the awarded price of $74.7 million compare to similar brigade complex construction projects?
Benchmarking the $74.7 million award against similar brigade complex construction projects requires access to detailed cost data for comparable facilities. Factors such as size (square footage), location, specific functional requirements (barracks, training areas, administrative spaces), and the year of award significantly influence project costs. Without specific comparable project data, it's difficult to definitively state if this price represents excellent, fair, or concerning value. However, for a large-scale military facility, this figure is within a plausible range, assuming standard construction costs and project scope. A detailed analysis would involve comparing cost per square foot or cost per soldier capacity against a validated set of similar projects.
What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for a project of this magnitude?
The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for a large construction project like a brigade complex lies in the initial pricing accuracy. If the contractor, M. A. Mortenson Company, underestimated costs during the bidding phase, they bear the burden of cost overruns, potentially impacting their profitability or leading to quality compromises if they seek to cut corners. Conversely, if the price was set too high due to insufficient competition or flawed estimates, the government may have overpaid. Other risks include contractor default or delays, though FFP contracts incentivize timely completion. The government's risk is primarily that the initial price reflects true market value and that the contractor has the financial stability and expertise to deliver the project as specified.
What is the expected effectiveness of the completed brigade complex in supporting Army operations?
The effectiveness of the completed brigade complex hinges on its design meeting the specific operational and living requirements of the assigned brigade. A well-designed complex should provide adequate and modern facilities for troop housing, training, command and control, maintenance, and logistical support, thereby enhancing readiness and morale. Its effectiveness is measured by how well it enables the brigade to perform its mission, facilitates training, and supports the well-being of soldiers. The contract's success in delivering the specified facilities according to design and quality standards is paramount to achieving this operational effectiveness.
How has federal spending on large-scale military construction projects trended over the past decade?
Federal spending on large-scale military construction projects, often categorized under Military Construction (MILCON), has fluctuated over the past decade, influenced by geopolitical events, defense budget allocations, and infrastructure modernization needs. Following periods of extensive deployment, there has been a consistent requirement for upgrading aging facilities and building new infrastructure to support evolving military strategies and troop levels. While specific figures vary annually, the Department of Defense consistently allocates billions of dollars towards construction projects aimed at maintaining and improving its global infrastructure. Trends often reflect shifts in strategic priorities, such as investments in cyber capabilities, advanced training facilities, or troop housing upgrades.
What are the implications of awarding a contract of this size to a single prime contractor regarding project management and oversight?
Awarding a contract of this magnitude ($74.7 million) to a single prime contractor like M. A. Mortenson Company centralizes project management responsibilities and accountability. This approach simplifies communication and coordination compared to managing multiple prime contractors. However, it also concentrates risk; the government relies heavily on the prime contractor's ability to manage subcontractors, schedules, and quality effectively. Robust government oversight is crucial to monitor the prime contractor's performance, ensure compliance with contract terms, and mitigate risks associated with potential delays, cost issues, or quality deficiencies. The government's project management team plays a vital role in overseeing the prime contractor's execution.
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: W912DW07R0006
Offers Received: 2
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: $74,679,345
Exercised Options: $74,679,345
Current Obligation: $74,679,345
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-06-13
Current End Date: 2010-08-01
Potential End Date: 2010-08-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-06-30
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)