Dredging Gulfport Harbor contract awarded to Weeks Marine, Inc. for $17.4 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,406,185 ($17.4M)

Contractor: Weeks Marine, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-03

End Date: 2009-08-15

Contract Duration: 165 days

Daily Burn Rate: $105.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: DREDGING GULFPORT HARBOR

Place of Performance

Location: IRVINGTON, MOBILE County, ALABAMA, 36544

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.4 million to WEEKS MARINE, INC. for work described as: DREDGING GULFPORT HARBOR Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through comparison with similar dredging projects. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include project duration and fixed-price contract type. 4. Performance context relies on the successful completion of the dredging scope. 5. Sector positioning within the broader maritime infrastructure and construction industry.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $17.4 million for dredging Gulfport Harbor appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale maritime infrastructure projects. The firm fixed-price structure shifts risk to the contractor, which can incentivize efficiency. However, a detailed cost breakdown and comparison to industry cost-per-cubic-yard metrics would provide a more precise value assessment. Without specific performance data or comparison to other bids, the exact value proposition remains partially obscured.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, suggesting that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of two bids indicates a degree of competition, which is generally favorable for price discovery and achieving a competitive market rate. The specific number of bidders and the evaluation criteria would further illuminate the strength of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price through market forces, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the entities involved in maritime commerce and transportation utilizing Gulfport Harbor. The service delivered is the dredging of the harbor, essential for maintaining navigable depths. The geographic impact is localized to Gulfport, Mississippi, and its surrounding waterways. Workforce implications include employment for skilled labor in dredging operations and related support services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the construction and engineering sector, specifically focusing on maritime infrastructure development and maintenance. The dredging market is characterized by specialized equipment and expertise, with a limited number of large players capable of undertaking major projects. Spending in this area is often driven by federal infrastructure investment and the need to maintain port accessibility and capacity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. This suggests that the primary award went to a large contractor, and the impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Weeks Marine, Inc. utilizes small business subcontractors for specialized services or supplies.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the awarding agency (Department of the Army). Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to milestones. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed operational oversight specifics are not publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, maritime, dredging, infrastructure, mississippi, large-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.4 million to WEEKS MARINE, INC.. DREDGING GULFPORT HARBOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WEEKS MARINE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-03. End: 2009-08-15.

What is the historical spending pattern for dredging services at Gulfport Harbor by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending for dredging at Gulfport Harbor requires accessing detailed contract databases over multiple fiscal years. While this specific contract from 2009 is for $17.4 million, prior and subsequent awards for similar services would reveal trends in investment, frequency of dredging needs, and the average cost per project. Factors such as changes in harbor usage, sediment accumulation rates, and infrastructure upgrades influence the necessity and scale of dredging operations, thus impacting spending patterns. Without a comprehensive historical data review, it's difficult to ascertain if this $17.4 million award represents a typical, elevated, or reduced investment for this location.

How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or other bids received for this dredging project?

The provided data indicates two bids were received, with this contract awarded at $17.4 million. To assess value for money, a comparison to the government's estimate (if available) and the other bid is crucial. If the awarded amount was significantly below the estimate or the competing bid, it suggests strong price competition. Conversely, if it was close to or exceeded the estimate, further scrutiny of the scope and pricing might be warranted. Benchmarking against per-cubic-yard dredging costs for similar projects in comparable regions would also provide context on the reasonableness of the unit pricing within the $17.4 million total.

What is Weeks Marine, Inc.'s track record with similar dredging contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or Army Corps of Engineers?

Weeks Marine, Inc. has a significant history of performing dredging and marine construction projects for federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers. Their track record typically involves a range of contract sizes and complexities, from routine maintenance dredging to capital improvement projects. Evaluating their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing project completion records, any instances of contract disputes or penalties, and client satisfaction feedback. A strong history of successful, on-time, and within-budget project delivery would indicate a lower performance risk for this Gulfport Harbor contract.

What were the specific performance metrics or deliverables outlined in the contract, and how were they measured?

The contract likely specified key performance metrics related to the volume of material to be dredged, the required depth and width of the channels, and the disposal methods for the dredged material. Performance would typically be measured against these specifications, with progress monitored through regular reporting and site inspections by a government representative (COR). Deliverables would include completed dredging operations meeting the specified hydrographic survey requirements. Penalties might be associated with failure to meet depth, schedule, or environmental compliance standards, while timely completion and adherence to specifications would constitute successful performance.

Are there any known environmental risks or mitigation strategies associated with this specific dredging project?

Dredging projects inherently carry environmental risks, including potential impacts on water quality (turbidity), disruption of marine habitats, and the management of dredged material. For the Gulfport Harbor project, specific risks would depend on the location of the dredging, the type of sediment, and the disposal methods employed. Mitigation strategies commonly include silt curtains to control turbidity, careful selection of dredged material placement sites (e.g., beneficial reuse in habitat restoration or confined disposal facilities), and adherence to environmental permits and regulations. The contract likely includes clauses requiring compliance with environmental protection measures.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ConstructionNonresidential Building ConstructionCommercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIESCONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W9127808B0005

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Weeks Marine Inc (UEI: 044665230)

Address: 304 GAILLE DR, COVINGTON, LA, 70433

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,406,185

Exercised Options: $17,406,185

Current Obligation: $17,406,185

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9127809D0015

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2009-03-03

Current End Date: 2009-08-15

Potential End Date: 2009-08-15 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2020-09-27

More Contracts from Weeks Marine, Inc.

View all Weeks Marine, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending