Army awards $46.6M for ARRA-funded harbor dredging, with 4 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $46,649,875 ($46.6M)

Contractor: Manson Construction CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-05-28

End Date: 2012-01-31

Contract Duration: 978 days

Daily Burn Rate: $47.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: TAS::96 3135::TAS RECCOVERY (ARRA) -- ANCHORAGE HARBOR TRANSITIONAL AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING ARRA::YES::ARRA

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $46.6 million to MANSON CONSTRUCTION CO for work described as: TAS::96 3135::TAS RECCOVERY (ARRA) -- ANCHORAGE HARBOR TRANSITIONAL AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING ARRA::YES::ARRA Key points: 1. Contract awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for critical infrastructure. 2. Significant investment in Alaska's port infrastructure, supporting regional economic activity. 3. Competition level suggests a potentially competitive bidding environment for this type of specialized construction. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 5. Project duration of nearly three years indicates a substantial scope of work. 6. Geographic focus on Alaska highlights the importance of maritime trade in remote regions.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $46.6 million for harbor dredging appears reasonable given the scope and duration. While specific benchmarks for ARRA-funded dredging projects are difficult to ascertain without more granular data, the number of bids (4) suggests a degree of market interest. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government. Further analysis would require comparing unit costs for dredging volume and disposal against similar projects in comparable geographic and environmental conditions.

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 receipt of 4 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this specialized construction service. A competitive bidding process generally leads to better price discovery and can result in more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition for this project likely resulted in a more competitive price, maximizing the value of taxpayer dollars allocated for this ARRA-funded infrastructure improvement.

Public Impact

Benefits Alaskan maritime commerce and regional economic development through improved port infrastructure. Delivers essential maintenance and transitional dredging services for the Anchorage Harbor. Geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, supporting vital transportation and trade routes. Workforce implications include employment for skilled labor in the heavy construction and maritime sectors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen subsurface conditions are encountered during dredging.
Environmental compliance risks associated with dredging in a marine environment.
Logistical challenges in remote Alaska could impact project timelines and costs.

Positive Signals

ARRA funding aimed at stimulating economic activity and creating jobs.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost control and predictability.
Award to a single contractor streamlines project execution and accountability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector, specifically focusing on maritime infrastructure. The dredging market is specialized, often requiring significant capital investment in equipment and expertise. ARRA projects like this aimed to inject federal funds into critical infrastructure, stimulating economic activity and employment within this sector during a period of economic downturn. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed based on cubic yards dredged, disposal costs, and project complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. Given the specialized nature and scale of major dredging projects, prime contractors are often large firms. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor utilizes small business subcontractors for support services or specialized components, which is not detailed in this record.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Army Corps of Engineers district. The use of ARRA funds often involved specific reporting and oversight requirements to ensure accountability and prevent waste. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Infrastructure Projects
Port and Harbor Improvement Projects
Maritime Transportation Infrastructure

Risk Flags

ARRA Funding Oversight
Environmental Compliance
Logistical Challenges in Remote Locations

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $46.6 million to MANSON CONSTRUCTION CO. TAS::96 3135::TAS RECCOVERY (ARRA) -- ANCHORAGE HARBOR TRANSITIONAL AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING ARRA::YES::ARRA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANSON CONSTRUCTION CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $46.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-05-28. End: 2012-01-31.

What was the specific scope of work for the Anchorage Harbor Transitional and Maintenance Dredging project?

The Anchorage Harbor Transitional and Maintenance Dredging project, funded by ARRA, involved the removal of accumulated sediment to maintain or improve the navigability of the harbor. This typically includes dredging specified channels and berths to a certain depth and width, and the subsequent disposal of the dredged material in an environmentally compliant manner. The 'transitional' aspect may refer to preparing the harbor for future development or changes in vessel traffic. The project's duration of nearly three years suggests a substantial volume of material to be removed and potentially complex disposal requirements.

How does the $46.6 million contract value compare to similar dredging projects in Alaska or other Arctic regions?

Directly comparing the $46.6 million contract value to similar projects is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns (e.g., cost per cubic yard dredged, disposal costs, mobilization/demobilization). However, dredging in remote regions like Alaska often incurs higher costs due to logistical complexities, specialized equipment requirements, and potentially shorter working seasons. ARRA funding also aimed to accelerate projects, which could influence pricing. A comprehensive benchmark would require analyzing unit costs against other Army Corps of Engineers projects or similar state/local government contracts in comparable environments, considering factors like material type, depth, and disposal methods.

What were the primary risks associated with this dredging contract, and how were they mitigated?

Primary risks for this dredging contract likely included unforeseen subsurface conditions (e.g., harder materials than anticipated, buried obstructions), environmental compliance issues (e.g., encountering contaminated sediments, impact on marine life), and logistical challenges inherent to working in Alaska (e.g., equipment transport, weather delays, limited workforce availability). Mitigation strategies typically involve thorough geotechnical surveys prior to bidding, robust environmental monitoring plans, contingency planning for weather and logistics, and the use of a firm fixed-price contract which shifts some cost risk to the contractor. The contractor's experience and bonding capacity would also be assessed during the bidding process.

What is the historical spending pattern for harbor dredging contracts awarded by the Department of the Army, particularly in Alaska?

Historical spending on harbor dredging by the Department of the Army, especially through the Army Corps of Engineers, is substantial and cyclical, often tied to infrastructure needs and appropriations. Alaska, with its extensive coastline and reliance on maritime transport, frequently sees significant investment in port and waterway maintenance. While this specific $46.6 million ARRA contract represents a large single award, the Army Corps manages numerous smaller maintenance dredging contracts annually across the nation. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract values, competition levels, and the types of dredging services procured, often showing increased activity during periods of federal infrastructure investment like the ARRA era.

How effective was the ARRA funding in stimulating economic activity and job creation through contracts like this one?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was designed to stimulate economic activity and create jobs through significant federal spending on infrastructure, energy, and other sectors. Contracts like this dredging project were intended to directly inject funds into the economy by employing construction workers, equipment operators, engineers, and support personnel, as well as purchasing materials and services. While the immediate impact was job creation and economic stimulus, the long-term effectiveness is debated and depends on factors like project readiness, multiplier effects, and the overall economic climate. Reports from the ARRA era generally indicated that the funds were deployed rapidly and supported a considerable number of jobs.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W911KB09R0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5209 E MARGINAL WAY S, SEATTLE, WA, 98134

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $60,057,184

Exercised Options: $46,649,875

Current Obligation: $46,649,875

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline