DoD spent $26.4M on cargo and tanker vessels, with Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding securing the definitive contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,415,049 ($26.4M)

Contractor: Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-06-21

End Date: 2007-01-05

Contract Duration: 1,659 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CARGO AND TANKER VESSELS

Place of Performance

Location: PASCAGOULA, JACKSON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39581

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.4 million to BOLLINGER MISSISSIPPI SHIPBUILDING, LLC for work described as: CARGO AND TANKER VESSELS Key points: 1. The contract value of $26.4 million for vessel support activities represents a significant investment in maritime logistics. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are assessed to understand pricing efficiency and potential for taxpayer savings. 3. Risk indicators are evaluated to ensure the contractor's performance aligns with expectations and mitigates potential disruptions. 4. Performance context is crucial for understanding the scope and duration of services provided under this agreement. 5. The contract's positioning within the broader defense sector highlights the importance of specialized maritime support. 6. Analysis focuses on value-for-money by comparing this contract's terms to similar procurements and market rates.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $26.4 million over its duration suggests a moderate level of spending for specialized maritime support. Benchmarking against similar contracts for vessel construction or long-term maintenance is necessary to fully assess value. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed service breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost certainty.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This competitive process is generally expected to drive down prices and ensure the government receives the best value. The presence of two bids suggests a reasonable level of interest, though a higher number of bidders could have potentially led to even more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages a wider range of suppliers to bid, potentially leading to lower prices and more innovative solutions.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the provision of essential cargo and tanker vessels, crucial for logistical operations. Services delivered likely include transportation of goods and potentially fuel, supporting military readiness and deployment. The geographic impact is primarily within areas requiring maritime transport, potentially including domestic waterways and overseas operations. Workforce implications may involve skilled labor for vessel operation, maintenance, and related support activities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen maintenance issues arise beyond the scope of the fixed-price contract.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical vessel services could pose a risk if performance falters.
Ensuring compliance with environmental regulations for vessel operation and maintenance requires ongoing oversight.

Positive Signals

The use of a definitive contract provides a clear framework for service delivery and payment.
Fixed-price contract type helps to control costs and provides budget certainty for the Department of the Army.
Awarding under full and open competition suggests a robust selection process that likely identified a capable provider.

Sector Analysis

The maritime transportation sector is vital for global commerce and national defense, encompassing a wide range of vessel types and services. This contract for cargo and tanker vessels falls within the broader 'Other Support Activities for Water Transportation' category. Spending in this sector can fluctuate based on defense needs, economic conditions, and global trade patterns. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other government contracts for similar vessel procurements or long-term charter agreements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, nor is there information suggesting significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The primary contractor, Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding, LLC, is likely a large entity. Further investigation would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation, if any, in the supply chain for this contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Sealift Command Contracts
Naval Vessel Construction and Repair
Port and Harbor Operations Support
Water Transportation Services

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Scope Creep
Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.4 million to BOLLINGER MISSISSIPPI SHIPBUILDING, LLC. CARGO AND TANKER VESSELS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOLLINGER MISSISSIPPI SHIPBUILDING, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-06-21. End: 2007-01-05.

What is the historical spending pattern for cargo and tanker vessel support by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on cargo and tanker vessel support by the Department of the Army can vary significantly year over year, influenced by operational tempo, deployment needs, and strategic priorities. While this specific contract represents $26.4 million over its period of performance, broader trends would involve analyzing aggregate spending across multiple contracts and fiscal years. Factors such as the aging of the existing fleet, the need for new vessel acquisition or modernization, and the utilization of commercial maritime assets all contribute to the overall spending landscape. Understanding these patterns requires access to historical contract databases and budget allocations specifically for maritime logistics and transportation services. Without a comprehensive review of past procurements, it is difficult to definitively characterize the historical spending pattern beyond this single data point.

How does the per-unit cost of services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining the per-unit cost of services under this contract and comparing it to industry benchmarks is challenging without more granular data. The provided information aggregates the total contract value ($26.4 million) over its duration (1659 days) and notes the number of offers (2). To establish a per-unit cost, we would need to know the specific services rendered (e.g., per day charter rate, per ton transported, per maintenance hour) and the quantity of those services. Industry benchmarks for vessel chartering, operation, and maintenance vary widely based on vessel type, size, age, operational area, and service provider. A definitive contract with a firm fixed price offers some cost certainty, but without a breakdown of the services provided and their associated quantities, a direct comparison to market rates or similar government contracts is not feasible with the current data.

What is the track record of Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding, LLC in fulfilling similar government contracts?

Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding, LLC has a history of engaging in shipbuilding and repair contracts, including those with government entities. To assess their track record specifically for fulfilling similar government contracts related to cargo and tanker vessels, a detailed review of their past performance would be necessary. This would involve examining contract histories for on-time delivery, adherence to specifications, quality of work, and any instances of disputes or contract terminations. Information on past performance is often available through sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or through contractor performance evaluation reports (CPARS), though access to CPARS data can be restricted. A positive track record in delivering complex maritime assets and services on time and within budget would indicate a lower risk for this current contract.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Other Support Activities for Water Transportation' classification?

The 'Other Support Activities for Water Transportation' classification is broad and can encompass a wide array of services, leading to potential risks if the scope is not clearly defined or managed. Risks can include scope creep, where the contractor is asked to perform services beyond the original intent, potentially leading to cost increases or delays. There's also a risk of misinterpretation of requirements, leading to the delivery of services that do not fully meet the agency's needs. Furthermore, the 'other' nature of the classification might mean that specialized expertise is required, and if the contractor lacks this, performance issues could arise. Ensuring clear communication, robust oversight, and well-defined performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks associated with such a broad service category.

How does the number of bids (2) impact the government's ability to secure competitive pricing for this contract?

A competition with only two bids, as seen in this contract, generally presents a moderate level of competition. While it is better than a sole-source award, it is less ideal than a scenario with numerous bidders. With only two offers, the government has less leverage to negotiate aggressively on price, as the pool of potential suppliers is limited. The pricing achieved is dependent on the competitiveness between those two specific bidders. If both bidders were highly motivated and had similar cost structures, the price could still be competitive. However, there is an increased risk that the government may not have received the absolute lowest possible price compared to a scenario with, for example, five or more competing offers, where the pressure to win the contract could drive prices down further.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Water Transportation › Other Support Activities for Water Transportation

Product/Service Code: SHIPS, SMALL CRAFT, PONTOON, DOCKS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd

Address: 900 BAYOU CASOTTE PKWY, PASCAGOULA, MS, 39581

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline