Army awards $25M for Mississippi River dredging, exceeding initial cost estimates by over $17M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,075,000 ($25.1M)

Contractor: Weeks Marine, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-06-15

End Date: 2013-05-01

Contract Duration: 320 days

Daily Burn Rate: $78.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: MS RIVER, BR TO THE GULF, HEAD OF PASSES HOPPER DREDGE DISPOSAL AREA PROJECT, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA (ED 12-008)

Place of Performance

Location: PORT SULPHUR, PLAQUEMINES County, LOUISIANA, 70083

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.1 million to WEEKS MARINE, INC. for work described as: MS RIVER, BR TO THE GULF, HEAD OF PASSES HOPPER DREDGE DISPOSAL AREA PROJECT, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA (ED 12-008) Key points: 1. Contract value significantly surpassed the initial estimate, indicating potential cost overruns or scope changes. 2. The project involved a single awardee, raising questions about the extent of competition and potential price impacts. 3. A high number of bidders (78) suggests strong market interest, but the final award price needs scrutiny. 4. The contract duration of 320 days was met, but performance details beyond completion are not provided. 5. This project falls within the heavy civil engineering construction sector, a critical area for infrastructure maintenance. 6. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the final price exceeded initial projections.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The final award price of $25,075,000 is substantially higher than the initial estimate of $7,835,900, representing a nearly 220% increase. While the contract was awarded under full and open competition, the significant deviation from the estimate warrants further investigation into the reasons for the cost escalation. Without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar dredging projects in the region, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the magnitude of the increase suggests potential inefficiencies or unforeseen challenges.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 78 bids received. The high number of bidders indicates a competitive market for this type of dredging service. However, the substantial difference between the initial estimate and the final award price, despite robust competition, may suggest that the initial estimate was not realistic or that unforeseen factors significantly drove up costs during the bidding or execution phases.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition suggests that taxpayers benefited from a wide range of potential providers, which typically drives down prices. However, the final cost exceeding initial projections means taxpayers ultimately paid more than anticipated.

Public Impact

The project directly benefits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by maintaining critical navigation channels. Services delivered include dredging of the Mississippi River, essential for waterborne commerce and transportation. The geographic impact is focused on Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, a key area for port operations. The project supports the maritime and construction workforce involved in heavy civil engineering.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector, specifically related to port and waterway infrastructure. The market for dredging services is specialized, involving significant capital investment in equipment and expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other Army Corps of Engineers projects for river and harbor maintenance, as well as similar projects undertaken by state or local port authorities. The size of this contract is moderate within the context of large-scale civil engineering projects.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the specialized nature and scale of major dredging projects, prime contracts are often awarded to larger firms. However, it is possible that the prime contractor, Weeks Marine, Inc., may have utilized small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, though this information is not detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its construction and maintenance projects, including quality assurance and progress monitoring. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would likely apply to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, although detailed cost justifications for significant estimate variances may not always be readily accessible.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

construction, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, heavy-civil-engineering, louisiana, mississippi-river, plaquemines-parish, dredging, infrastructure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.1 million to WEEKS MARINE, INC.. MS RIVER, BR TO THE GULF, HEAD OF PASSES HOPPER DREDGE DISPOSAL AREA PROJECT, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA (ED 12-008)

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 $25.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-06-15. End: 2013-05-01.

What were the primary factors contributing to the significant cost increase from the initial estimate to the final award price?

The substantial increase from the initial estimate ($7.8 million) to the final award price ($25.1 million) for the Mississippi River dredging project suggests several potential contributing factors. These could include unforeseen subsurface conditions encountered during the bidding or execution phases, such as harder-than-expected materials requiring specialized equipment or more extensive work. Changes in project scope or requirements after the initial estimate was formulated could also be a reason. Furthermore, market fluctuations in fuel, labor, or material costs between the estimate date and the award date could have driven up prices. It's also possible the initial estimate was overly optimistic or did not fully account for all project complexities. Without detailed documentation from the Army Corps of Engineers, pinpointing the exact reasons remains speculative, but a combination of these factors is likely.

How does the final award price of $25.1 million compare to similar dredging projects managed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Gulf region?

Comparing the $25.1 million award price requires context regarding the scope, duration, and specific location of similar dredging projects. Dredging costs are highly variable, influenced by factors such as the volume of material removed, the type of material (e.g., sand, silt, rock), the distance material must be transported for disposal, and the specific environmental regulations applicable to the disposal site. Projects involving maintenance dredging of established channels might be less costly per cubic yard than capital dredging for new channels or significant expansions. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze data from other Army Corps projects in Louisiana and surrounding Gulf states, normalizing for factors like cubic yards dredged, project duration, and complexity. However, given the nearly 220% increase over the initial estimate for this project, it suggests that either this project was particularly complex or costly, or the initial estimate was significantly understated.

What is the track record of Weeks Marine, Inc. in executing large-scale Army Corps of Engineers dredging contracts?

Weeks Marine, Inc. has a significant history of performing dredging and marine construction work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies. They are a well-established company in the marine construction industry, known for operating large hopper dredges and performing complex projects. Their track record typically includes successful completion of numerous channel maintenance and deepening projects across various U.S. waterways. While specific performance metrics for every contract are not publicly detailed, their continued selection for major projects by the Corps suggests a generally reliable performance history. However, like any large contractor, there may have been instances of cost adjustments or schedule modifications on past projects, which are common in the inherently variable nature of marine construction.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract where the final price significantly exceeds the initial estimate?

A significant cost overrun from the initial estimate to the final award price presents several risks. Firstly, it raises concerns about the accuracy of the initial cost estimation process, potentially indicating flawed planning or insufficient data gathering by the procuring agency. Secondly, it can signal potential inefficiencies or unexpected challenges during project execution that may have driven up costs beyond what was anticipated, impacting the overall value for money. Thirdly, such discrepancies can lead to budget overruns for the agency, potentially diverting funds from other critical projects or requiring additional appropriations. Finally, it can erode public and congressional confidence in the government's ability to manage large-scale projects effectively and cost-efficiently. For taxpayers, it means the project ultimately cost more than initially planned.

How does the 'full and open competition' with 78 bidders reconcile with the substantial cost increase over the initial estimate?

The reconciliation between robust competition (78 bidders) and a significant cost increase over the initial estimate lies in understanding the difference between an 'estimate' and a 'bid price,' and the factors influencing both. An initial estimate is the government's projection of likely costs, often made early in the planning process and potentially based on limited information or preliminary scope. A bid price is what contractors are willing to perform the work for, based on their assessment of the scope, risks, and market conditions. The high number of bidders suggests the market was competitive and contractors saw an opportunity. However, if the initial estimate was significantly understated, or if unforeseen conditions or market shifts occurred between the estimate and the bids, the competitive bids could still result in a price much higher than the original government projection. The competition ensured a fair market price was sought, but the market price turned out to be substantially higher than the initial government guess.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ConstructionOther Heavy and Civil Engineering ConstructionOther Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIESCONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912P812B0028

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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,075,000

Exercised Options: $25,075,000

Current Obligation: $25,075,000

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 56

Total Subaward Amount: $6,299,592

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2012-06-15

Current End Date: 2013-05-01

Potential End Date: 2013-05-01 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2020-09-28

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