Transportation contract for freight services awarded to Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC for over $31.9 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,912,998 ($31.9M)

Contractor: Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2023-01-19

End Date: 2025-07-26

Contract Duration: 919 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Transportation

Official Description: BRITTIN FY 23 GAA M&R COST REIMBURSABLE PAH-BTN23-GAC A

Place of Performance

Location: PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH County, OREGON, 97203

State: Oregon Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $31.9 million to PASHA HAWAII HOLDINGS LLC for work described as: BRITTIN FY 23 GAA M&R COST REIMBURSABLE PAH-BTN23-GAC A Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Duration of the contract extends over two fiscal years. 3. The contract type is cost-plus-fixed-fee, which can lead to cost overruns. 4. No small business set-aside was applied to this contract. 5. The service is essential for deep-sea freight transportation. 6. The contract value is substantial, indicating significant service requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of over $31.9 million for deep-sea freight transportation is significant. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates close monitoring to ensure cost efficiency and prevent potential overruns. The absence of a competitive award means that the government may not have secured the most advantageous pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of fulfilling the requirement. The lack of competition means that potential cost savings that could arise from a bidding process were not realized. It also limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or providers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure on pricing. The government's negotiating position is weakened without alternative bidders.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Transportation, ensuring critical freight services. The service delivered is deep-sea freight transportation, vital for supply chain continuity. The geographic impact is likely national, supporting the movement of goods across significant distances. Workforce implications include the employment of mariners, logistics personnel, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation.
Lack of transparency in pricing due to non-competitive award.
Potential for reduced innovation due to limited market engagement.

Positive Signals

Ensures critical deep-sea freight transportation services are maintained.
Contract awarded to an established entity with presumed capability.
Long-term contract provides stability for service delivery.

Sector Analysis

The deep-sea freight transportation sector is a critical component of global and national logistics. This contract falls within the broader transportation and logistics industry, which is characterized by high capital investment, complex regulatory environments, and significant economic impact. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without competitive data, but the scale of this award suggests a substantial operational requirement for the Maritime Administration.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to a presumably larger entity means that opportunities for small businesses within the supply chain may be limited unless Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC voluntarily engages them. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to negative in terms of direct contract awards.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance metrics and cost reporting required by the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, making public scrutiny of pricing and value more challenging.

Related Government Programs

Maritime Security Program
Jones Act Vessels
Department of Defense Logistics Contracts
Strategic Sealift Capability

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may limit competition and potentially increase costs.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $31.9 million to PASHA HAWAII HOLDINGS LLC. BRITTIN FY 23 GAA M&R COST REIMBURSABLE PAH-BTN23-GAC A

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PASHA HAWAII HOLDINGS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Maritime Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-01-19. End: 2025-07-26.

What is the historical spending pattern for deep-sea freight transportation services by the Maritime Administration?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for deep-sea freight transportation by the Maritime Administration is crucial for understanding the context of this $31.9 million award. While specific historical data for this exact service is not provided, the Maritime Administration's mission involves ensuring a U.S.-flagged merchant marine fleet capable of supporting national security and economic needs. This often involves contracts for vessel operation, maintenance, and transportation services. Past spending would likely reveal fluctuations based on geopolitical events, economic conditions, and specific program requirements. A trend of increasing or decreasing reliance on such services, or shifts in contracting methods (e.g., from competitive to sole-source), would provide valuable insight into the current award's justification and potential value. Without detailed historical figures, it's difficult to definitively state if this award represents an increase or decrease in spending for similar services.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other contract types in terms of risk and value for the government?

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract structure, used here, is characterized by the government reimbursing the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often employed when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves significant uncertainty, making fixed-price contracts impractical. For the government, the primary risk is cost overrun, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to maximize their return, although the fixed fee theoretically caps profit. The value proposition for the government lies in securing services for uncertain projects where other contract types might fail. However, it necessitates robust oversight and auditing to control costs and ensure fair pricing. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers less price certainty but greater flexibility. Compared to Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) contracts, CPFF offers a more predictable fee but less incentive for the contractor to control costs.

What are the specific performance metrics and deliverables expected under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific performance metrics and deliverables for this deep-sea freight transportation contract. However, typical metrics for such services would likely include on-time delivery rates, cargo integrity (minimizing damage or loss), vessel operational readiness, fuel efficiency, adherence to safety and environmental regulations, and potentially crew performance standards. Deliverables would encompass the successful transportation of specified goods between designated ports, provision of regular status reports, maintenance logs, and compliance documentation. The effectiveness of the contract hinges on the clarity and measurability of these metrics and deliverables, which are essential for the Maritime Administration to assess contractor performance and ensure the value for money, especially given the sole-source and CPFF nature of the award.

What is the track record of Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC in fulfilling government contracts, particularly those of similar scope and value?

Information regarding Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC's specific track record in fulfilling government contracts, especially those of similar scope and value to this $31.9 million award, is not provided in the dataset. A comprehensive assessment of their performance would require reviewing past contract awards, performance evaluations (such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Given this is a sole-source award, it implies a level of trust or unique capability attributed to Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC by the awarding agency. However, without access to their performance history, it is difficult to independently verify their reliability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in delivering deep-sea freight transportation services to the government.

Are there any alternative providers or methods for deep-sea freight transportation that were considered before awarding this sole-source contract?

The data indicates this contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED,' which strongly suggests that alternative providers or methods were not formally solicited through a competitive bidding process. Sole-source awards are typically justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs, or in cases of urgent and compelling circumstances. The Maritime Administration would have had to document the rationale for not competing the award, potentially including factors like unique vessel capabilities, specialized routes, existing infrastructure, or national security requirements that only Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC could meet. Without this justification documentation, it remains unclear what alternatives, if any, were considered or why they were deemed unsuitable.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water Transportation › Deep Sea Freight Transportation

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 745 FORT ST STE 315, HONOLULU, HI, 96813

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,912,998

Exercised Options: $31,912,998

Current Obligation: $31,912,998

Actual Outlays: $28,313,548

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 693JF720G000003

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline