Army Corps of Engineers contract for facility operations and maintenance awarded to Rig Masters Inc. for $79.9M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,866,822 ($17.9M)

Contractor: RIG Masters Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-06-21

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,927 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200109!000291!96CE!CW38 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT VICKSBURG !DACW3801C0032 !A!N!*!Y! !20010621!20020630!799130752!799130752!799130752!N!RIG MASTERS, INC !159 TRIPLE J ROAD !MONTEREY !LA!71354!29340!083!28!GREENWOOD !LEFLORE !MISS !+000000300000!N!N!000000000000!M219!OPERATION/OTHER CONSERVATION & DEV FACILITIES !S1 !SERVICES !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !234990!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!R!2!003!K! !C!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !C! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: VICKSBURG, WARREN County, MISSISSIPPI, 39183

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.9 million to RIG MASTERS INC for work described as: 200109!000291!96CE!CW38 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT VICKSBURG !DACW3801C0032 !A!N!*!Y! !20010621!20020630!799130752!799130752!799130752!N!RIG MASTERS, INC !159 TRIPLE J ROAD !MONTEREY !LA!71354!29340!083!28!GREENWOOD !LEFLORE !MISS !+000000300000!N!N!000000000000!M219!OPERATION/OTHER … Key points: 1. Contract awarded for facility operations and maintenance, indicating a need for ongoing support of physical infrastructure. 2. The contract duration of approximately 5 years suggests a long-term requirement for these services. 3. Awarded to a single contractor, Rig Masters Inc., raising questions about the extent of competition. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which can incentivize performance but also carries inherent cost risks. 5. The significant value of the contract warrants scrutiny of performance and cost controls. 6. The geographic location of the contractor in Mississippi may indicate a focus on regional infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $79.9 million over approximately 5 years represents a substantial investment in facility operations and maintenance. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for large-scale facility support is challenging without more specific details on the scope of services. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for performance incentives but also requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that award fees are justified by exceptional performance. Without comparative data on per-unit costs for specific maintenance tasks or operational metrics, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is an unusual designation. Typically, 'full and open competition' implies broad solicitation. The 'exclusion of sources' suggests that while competition was sought, certain potential bidders may have been excluded for specific reasons, or that the competition was limited to a pre-qualified pool. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the designation implies a less than fully open process, which could potentially impact price discovery and the breadth of innovative solutions considered.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean that taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price achievable through a wider bidding process. It suggests that the government may have had specific requirements or constraints that narrowed the field of potential contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the facilities managed and maintained under this contract, ensuring their operational readiness and longevity. Services delivered include operations and maintenance for conservation and development facilities, crucial for environmental and infrastructure projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in the areas where these specific facilities are located, potentially within the purview of the USA Engineer District Vicksburg. Workforce implications could include employment opportunities for personnel involved in facility operations, maintenance, and administration, both directly with the contractor and potentially through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires careful monitoring to prevent cost overruns and ensure award fees are earned through superior performance.
The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and its impact on market competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the services rendered.
The significant contract value necessitates robust oversight to ensure accountability and prevent potential waste or fraud.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses essential facility operations and maintenance, contributing to the long-term viability of critical infrastructure.
A duration of nearly 5 years suggests a stable and predictable operational environment for the contractor.
The contract was awarded to a specific entity, Rig Masters Inc., indicating a known provider for these services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader sector of government contracting for facility support services, which includes operations, maintenance, repair, and management of physical assets. This is a significant market within the federal landscape, particularly for agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for a vast array of infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost per square foot for maintenance, operational efficiency metrics, and the typical contract values for similar scope and duration across different federal agencies. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by the continuous need to maintain government-owned facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside requirement. The primary contractor, Rig Masters Inc., is responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements. Any subcontracting would be at their discretion, and its impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Rig Masters Inc. actively seeks to engage small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting agency, the Department of the Army, specifically the USA Engineer District Vicksburg. Mechanisms likely include contract performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to the terms of the Cost Plus Award Fee structure. Accountability measures would involve monitoring performance against award criteria and ensuring compliance with all contractual obligations. Transparency is typically managed through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific operational details might be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Facility Maintenance Contracts
Department of Defense Operations and Maintenance Spending
Federal Conservation and Development Facility Support
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance

Risk Flags

Limited competition designation requires further scrutiny.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust oversight.
Contractor's historical performance data not provided.
Specific scope of 'conservation & development facilities' is unclear.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.9 million to RIG MASTERS INC. 200109!000291!96CE!CW38 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT VICKSBURG !DACW3801C0032 !A!N!*!Y! !20010621!20020630!799130752!799130752!799130752!N!RIG MASTERS, INC !159 TRIPLE J ROAD !MONTEREY !LA!71354!29340!083!28!GREENWOOD !LEFLORE !MISS !+000000300000!N!N!000000000000!M219!OPERATION/OTHER CONSERVATION & DEV FACILITIES !S1 !SERVICES !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !234990!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!R!2!003!K! !C!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !C! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RIG MASTERS 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 $17.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-06-21. End: 2006-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'conservation & development facilities' being operated and maintained under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract's purpose as 'OPERATION/OTHER CONSERVATION & DEV FACILITIES'. This broadly suggests services related to the upkeep and functioning of infrastructure associated with environmental conservation projects, natural resource management, or development initiatives managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Examples could include maintaining dams, levees, water control structures, visitor centers at parks, research facilities, or other installations supporting ecological preservation or land/water resource development. Without more granular information, the exact type and scale of these facilities remain unspecified, making it difficult to fully contextualize the scope of the 'operations and maintenance' required.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure influence contractor performance and cost control in this contract?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure allows the contractor, Rig Masters Inc., to be reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base fee and an award amount. The award amount is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria. This structure is intended to incentivize high performance by offering a potential for a higher total fee if objectives are met or exceeded. However, it also requires robust government oversight to ensure that the costs incurred are reasonable and allocable, and that the award criteria are objective and consistently applied. The potential for increased fees can motivate contractors to go beyond minimum requirements, but it also necessitates careful management to prevent scope creep or inflated costs justified by marginal performance gains. The government must actively manage the award fee determination process to ensure it accurately reflects contractor value and taxpayer interests.

What are the implications of 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' for taxpayer value?

The contract designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' presents a nuanced picture regarding taxpayer value. While 'full and open competition' theoretically aims to solicit bids from all responsible sources, the subsequent 'exclusion of sources' indicates that certain potential bidders were not considered. This exclusion could stem from specific technical requirements, security clearances, geographic limitations, or other pre-defined criteria. If the exclusions were justified and necessary to meet critical program needs, the resulting competition among the remaining qualified bidders might still yield competitive pricing. However, if the exclusions were overly restrictive or arbitrary, it could limit the pool of bidders, potentially leading to higher prices than would have been achieved in a truly unrestricted competition. The ultimate impact on taxpayer value depends heavily on the specific reasons for the exclusion and the competitiveness of the remaining bidders.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar facility operations and maintenance contracts by the USA Engineer District Vicksburg?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar contracts by the USA Engineer District Vicksburg is crucial for contextualizing the $79.9 million award to Rig Masters Inc. Without access to historical contract databases or specific agency spending reports for this district, it's challenging to provide precise figures. However, facility operations and maintenance are recurring needs for the Army Corps of Engineers, given their extensive portfolio of infrastructure. It is reasonable to assume that the Vicksburg District would have a history of awarding contracts for similar services, potentially varying in scope, duration, and value based on specific project requirements and available funding. Understanding the average contract size, duration, and the number of bidders in previous solicitations for comparable services would help determine if the current award is within historical norms or represents a significant deviation, potentially indicating changes in service needs, market conditions, or contracting strategies.

What is Rig Masters Inc.'s track record with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense or Army Corps of Engineers?

Information regarding Rig Masters Inc.'s track record with federal contracts, especially with the Department of Defense or Army Corps of Engineers, is essential for assessing performance risk and reliability. While the provided data confirms Rig Masters Inc. as the contractor for this specific $79.9 million award, it does not detail their past performance history, prior contract values, or any past performance evaluations. A comprehensive review would involve searching federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for other contracts awarded to Rig Masters Inc., examining their completion status, any reported issues or disputes, and client feedback if available. A strong history of successful contract completion, particularly with similar agencies and service types, would suggest a lower performance risk. Conversely, a history of performance issues or contract terminations could raise concerns about the current award's likelihood of success and value for money.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6601 HWY 565, MONTEREY, LA, 71354

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline