DoD's $125.6M contract for USS Porter (DDG 78) FY25 EDSRA awarded to Metro Machine Corp

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $125,578,416 ($125.6M)

Contractor: Metro Machine Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-05-05

End Date: 2026-10-02

Contract Duration: 515 days

Daily Burn Rate: $243.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: USS PORTER (DDG 78) FY25 EDSRA

Place of Performance

Location: NORFOLK, NORFOLK CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23523

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $125.6 million to METRO MACHINE CORP. for work described as: USS PORTER (DDG 78) FY25 EDSRA Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in naval readiness and ship maintenance. 2. The award to Metro Machine Corp. suggests a competitive landscape for ship repair services. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability. 4. The duration of the contract indicates a substantial scope of work for the vessel. 5. This contract falls within the broader category of shipbuilding and repairing services for the Navy. 6. The contract's value is substantial, requiring careful monitoring for efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $125.6 million for the USS Porter's FY25 EDSRA appears to be within a reasonable range for major naval vessel maintenance. Benchmarking against similar complex repair and modernization contracts for destroyers would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government in managing cost overruns, assuming the scope was well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple capable ship repair companies had the opportunity to bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific contract. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and potentially better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces, ensuring that the government secures services at the most cost-effective rates available.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Navy and its operational readiness, ensuring a key asset like the USS Porter remains combat-capable. Services delivered include essential maintenance, repair, and modernization activities critical for extending the ship's service life. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the East Coast, where naval shipyards and repair facilities are predominantly located. This contract supports a skilled workforce in the maritime repair industry, including engineers, technicians, and tradespeople.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial assessments of the ship's condition are incomplete.
Risk of schedule delays due to unforeseen technical challenges or parts availability.
Ensuring the contractor's quality control processes meet stringent naval standards.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract helps mitigate cost overrun risks.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process likely yielded a fair price.
The contract is for a specific, defined period, allowing for focused execution.

Sector Analysis

The shipbuilding and repairing sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base, supporting naval fleet readiness. This contract for the USS Porter (DDG 78) falls within the broader market for naval vessel maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO). Spending in this sector is heavily influenced by defense budgets and the operational tempo of the fleet. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other major repair availabilities for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. While the prime contractor is Metro Machine Corp., there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, particularly in specialized repair or supply chain roles. The extent of small business subcontracting will depend on the prime contractor's strategy and the specific needs of the repair work.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures include adherence to the contract terms, performance metrics, and quality assurance surveillance plans. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. The Inspector General's office may conduct audits or investigations if performance or integrity concerns arise.

Related Government Programs

Naval Ship Maintenance Contracts
Destroyer Modernization Programs
Shipbuilding and Repair Services
Defense Readiness Contracts
Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer Maintenance

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule slippage
Risk of unforeseen repair requirements
Quality assurance challenges
Contract modifications impacting cost/schedule

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $125.6 million to METRO MACHINE CORP.. USS PORTER (DDG 78) FY25 EDSRA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is METRO MACHINE CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $125.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-05-05. End: 2026-10-02.

What is the historical spending pattern for the USS Porter's maintenance and repair?

Analyzing historical spending for the USS Porter (DDG 78) would involve reviewing previous maintenance availabilities, including Extended Dry-docking Selected Restricted Availabilities (EDSRA) and other repair periods. This would reveal trends in cost, duration, and the types of work performed. Comparing FY25 EDSRA costs to prior availabilities can highlight cost escalation or efficiency gains over time. For instance, if previous EDSRA contracts for this vessel or similar destroyers were significantly lower or higher, it would provide context for the current $125.6 million award. Understanding the scope of work in prior periods (e.g., major overhauls vs. routine maintenance) is crucial for a fair comparison. Data on contractor performance and any contract modifications in past availabilities would also inform this analysis.

How does Metro Machine Corp.'s performance on similar contracts compare to industry benchmarks?

Assessing Metro Machine Corp.'s performance on similar contracts requires access to historical performance data, such as past performance information (PPI) reports or CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) ratings. Benchmarking against industry standards would involve comparing their on-time delivery, cost control, and quality of work on previous naval repair contracts, particularly for destroyers. If Metro Machine Corp. has a track record of successful, on-budget completions for complex availabilities, it suggests a lower risk profile for this contract. Conversely, a history of delays, cost overruns, or quality issues would raise concerns. The number of bids received can also indirectly reflect market perception of a contractor's capabilities and competitiveness.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how will they be measured?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for this EDSRA contract would likely focus on schedule adherence, cost control, and quality of workmanship. Specific metrics could include the percentage of work completed on schedule, adherence to the approved budget, and the number of deficiencies identified during inspections or post-availability testing. The contract's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) would detail how these KPIs are monitored and evaluated. For example, the Navy's representatives would track progress against milestones and conduct inspections to ensure repairs meet technical specifications and safety standards. Meeting or exceeding these KPIs would be considered successful performance, while failing to do so could result in penalties or impact future contract awards.

What is the potential impact of unforeseen issues discovered during the availability on the contract's final cost and schedule?

Unforeseen issues discovered during the USS Porter's EDSRA, such as unexpected hull degradation, equipment failures, or outdated systems requiring upgrades, pose a significant risk to the contract's final cost and schedule. Because this is a firm-fixed-price contract, the government is protected from direct cost increases for the originally defined scope. However, if new work is required, it would likely be addressed through contract modifications (change orders), which would increase the total contract value and potentially extend the completion date. The process for identifying, evaluating, and approving such modifications is critical. The government's ability to negotiate fair pricing for any additional work and manage the impact on the overall availability schedule are key oversight functions.

How does the $125.6 million cost compare to the total lifecycle cost of a DDG 51-class destroyer?

The $125.6 million cost for the FY25 EDSRA represents a significant but necessary investment in maintaining the operational readiness and extending the service life of the USS Porter (DDG 78), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The total lifecycle cost of a DDG 51-class destroyer is estimated to be in the billions of dollars, encompassing acquisition, sustainment, personnel, training, and eventual decommissioning. Major repair availabilities like this EDSRA are a critical component of the sustainment phase, ensuring the vessel can continue to perform its missions effectively. While $125.6 million is a substantial sum, it is a fraction of the overall lifecycle cost and is essential for maximizing the return on the initial investment in the warship and preserving its warfighting capability.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Ship and Boat Building › Ship Building and Repairing

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › NON-NUCLEAR SHIP REPAIR

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0002424R4427

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Wico Limited

Address: 200 LIGON ST, NORFOLK, VA, 23523

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $126,032,928

Exercised Options: $124,892,441

Current Obligation: $125,578,416

Actual Outlays: $13,000,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline