Army Corps of Engineers contract for construction services awarded to J. E. McAmis, Inc. for $31.1M
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $31,071,653 ($31.1M)
Contractor: J. E. Mcamis, Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2003-02-26
End Date: 2005-04-11
Contract Duration: 775 days
Daily Burn Rate: $40.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 8
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: 200306!000335!96CE!CW17 !USA ENGINEER DIST JACKSONVILLE !DACW1703C0004 !A!N! !N! !20030226!20050411!060693512!060693512!060693512!N!J E MCAMIS, INC !3125 SOUTH GATE LANE !CHICO !CA!95928!54025!099!12!PALM BEACH !PALM BEACH !FLORIDA !+000000001000!N!N!000000000000!Y219!OTHER CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !237990!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!008!B! !D!N!C! ! !N!B!N!N! !B!C! !A!A!000!A!B!Y!T!N! ! ! ! !0001! !
Place of Performance
Location: PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH County, FLORIDA, 33480
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $31.1 million to J. E. MCAMIS, INC for work described as: 200306!000335!96CE!CW17 !USA ENGINEER DIST JACKSONVILLE !DACW1703C0004 !A!N! !N! !20030226!20050411!060693512!060693512!060693512!N!J E MCAMIS, INC !3125 SOUTH GATE LANE !CHICO !CA!95928!54025!099!12!PALM BEACH !PALM … Key points: 1. Contract value of $31.1 million for construction services. 2. Awarded by the Department of the Army, Engineer District, Jacksonville. 3. Contract duration of approximately 2 years. 4. Fixed-price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 237990, indicating heavy and civil engineering construction. 6. The Product Service Code (PSC) is C2, related to facilities construction.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $31.1 million appears to be a significant investment for construction services. Benchmarking this against similar projects by the Army Corps of Engineers would be necessary to determine if the pricing is competitive. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost control, but the overall value for money depends on the quality of work delivered and adherence to schedule. Without more detailed performance data or comparison points, a definitive assessment of value is challenging.
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 yield better pricing and a wider range of qualified contractors. The number of bidders, if available, would provide further insight into the level of competition and its impact on price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it typically drives down costs through market forces and encourages a broad base of contractors to vie for government work.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely the residents and infrastructure users in the Palm Beach, Florida area, who will benefit from the completed construction project. The contract delivers essential construction services for facilities, contributing to the Army Corps of Engineers' mission. The geographic impact is focused on Florida, specifically the Palm Beach region. The contract supports the construction workforce, including skilled laborers, tradespeople, and project management personnel.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen issues arise in construction.
- Risk of schedule delays impacting project completion and associated benefits.
- Ensuring quality of construction meets specified standards and requirements.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
- Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
- Contract awarded to a specific entity, J. E. McAmis, Inc., indicating a selection based on qualifications.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the construction sector, specifically heavy and civil engineering construction, as indicated by the NAICS code 237990. This sector is characterized by large-scale infrastructure projects, including those undertaken by government agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms capable of undertaking complex construction tasks. The contract value of $31.1 million is substantial, placing it in the mid-to-large range for individual construction awards within this category.
Small Business Impact
Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. As the contract was awarded under full and open competition, it is possible that small businesses participated either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement and its impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army, likely through the Army Corps of Engineers' contracting and project management divisions. Accountability measures would include adherence to contract terms, performance milestones, and quality standards. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Army Corps of Engineers Construction Projects
- Department of Defense Infrastructure Development
- Federal Civil Engineering Contracts
- Heavy Construction Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns
- Risk of schedule delays
- Quality control concerns
- Contractor performance variability
Tags
construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, army-corps-of-engineers, florida, palm-beach, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, heavy-and-civil-engineering-construction, facilities-construction
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $31.1 million to J. E. MCAMIS, INC. 200306!000335!96CE!CW17 !USA ENGINEER DIST JACKSONVILLE !DACW1703C0004 !A!N! !N! !20030226!20050411!060693512!060693512!060693512!N!J E MCAMIS, INC !3125 SOUTH GATE LANE !CHICO !CA!95928!54025!099!12!PALM BEACH !PALM BEACH !FLORIDA !+000000001000!N!N!000000000000!Y219!OTHER CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES !C2 !CONSTRUCTION !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !237990!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is J. E. MCAMIS, 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 $31.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2003-02-26. End: 2005-04-11.
What is the track record of J. E. McAmis, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?
A comprehensive review of J. E. McAmis, Inc.'s federal contract history would involve searching databases like SAM.gov and FPDS. This would reveal the number of contracts awarded, their values, agencies involved, and performance ratings. For this specific contract, the award to J. E. McAmis, Inc. suggests they met the qualifications and competitive requirements set forth by the Army Corps of Engineers. Understanding their past performance on similar construction projects, including adherence to schedule, budget, and quality standards, is crucial for assessing the risk and potential success of this particular award. A history of successful project completion and positive performance reviews would indicate a lower risk profile.
How does the $31.1 million contract value compare to similar Army Corps of Engineers construction projects?
To benchmark the $31.1 million contract value, one would need to analyze historical data for similar construction projects undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers. This involves identifying contracts with comparable scope, complexity, and geographic location. Factors such as the type of facility being constructed, the specific engineering challenges, and the prevailing market rates for labor and materials in the region during the contract period are essential for a meaningful comparison. If similar projects were awarded at significantly lower or higher figures, it could indicate whether this contract represents a particularly good or poor value. Without access to a detailed database of comparable projects and their specific costs, it is difficult to definitively assess the value proposition.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of construction contract for the federal government?
The primary risks associated with this construction contract for the federal government include potential cost overruns due to unforeseen site conditions, material price fluctuations, or scope creep. Schedule delays are another significant risk, which can impact the intended use of the facility and lead to additional costs. Quality control is also a concern, as subpar construction could necessitate costly repairs or rework. Furthermore, contractor performance issues, such as financial instability or management problems, could jeopardize project completion. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some cost risk to the contractor, but the government remains exposed to risks related to schedule and quality.
What was the effectiveness of the competition for this contract, and how did it influence pricing?
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which theoretically maximizes the number of potential bidders and fosters a competitive environment. The effectiveness of this competition in influencing pricing depends on the number of bids received and the range of prices submitted. A high number of bids from qualified contractors generally leads to more competitive pricing as firms vie for the award. If only a few bids were received, or if there was a significant disparity in pricing among bidders, it might suggest less robust competition than ideal. Analyzing the bid data, if available, would provide a clearer picture of how competition impacted the final negotiated price.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar construction services by the Department of the Army?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar construction services by the Department of the Army would involve examining contract awards over several fiscal years. This would require identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes (e.g., 237990) and PSCs (e.g., C2) related to heavy and civil engineering construction. Trends in annual spending, average contract values, and the number of awards could reveal patterns. For instance, a consistent or increasing level of spending might indicate sustained demand for these services, while significant fluctuations could be tied to specific infrastructure initiatives or budget cycles. Understanding these patterns provides context for the $31.1 million award and helps forecast future needs and potential budget allocations.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 8
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 3125 SOUTH GATE LANE, CHICO, CA, 95928
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2003-02-26
Current End Date: 2005-04-11
Potential End Date: 2006-07-28 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-02-25
More Contracts from J. E. Mcamis, Inc
- Mouth of the Columbia River, (MCR) South Jetty Rehabilitation — $171.9M (Department of Defense)
- TAS::96 3134::TAS $25,743,802.00 TAS::96 8862::TAS $8,866,700.00 This Dredging Project Includes NEW Work for the Improvement of the Columbia River From River Mile 65+00 to River Mile 67+50 and River Mile 87+25 to River Mile 88+25. Disposal of NEW Work Material From River Mile 65+00 to River Mile 67+50 and River Mile 87+25 to River Mile 88+25 Will BE Located AT the Designated Upland Site, Cottonwood Island — $56.3M (Department of Defense)
- Kissimmee River Restoration Project, C-38 Reach 2 Backfill IS Comprised of the Demolition and Removal of the Existng Water Control Struction S-65C and Subsequent Backfill of Said Structure. Igf::ct::igf — $44.1M (Department of Defense)
- Mouth of the Columbia River North Jetty Rehabilitation — $38.3M (Department of Defense)
- 200512!501445!96ce!w912ep!usa Engineer Dist Jacksonville !w912ep05c0043 !A!N! !N! ! !20050930!20070329!060693512!060693512!060693512!N!J E Mcamis, Inc !621 Country DR !chico !ca!95928!99099!099!12!palm Beach !palm Beach !florida !+000000040000!n!n!000019733220!y211!dams !C2 !construction !000 !* !237990!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!004!b! !D!N!C! ! !n!b!n!y! !B!C! !a!d!010!a!b!y!t!n! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $20.3M (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)