Navy awards $16.9M contract for rail support services to Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,946,950 ($16.9M)

Contractor: Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-04-03

End Date: 2012-08-01

Contract Duration: 4,138 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Transportation

Official Description: 200108!062699!1700!C4255 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING FIE!N4425501C1002 !A!N!*!N! !20010403!20110402!002835762!002835762!002835762!N!PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD!501 NORTH 2ND STREET !ELMA !WA!98541!07695!035!53!BREMERTON !KITSAP !WASHINGTON!+000000750000!N!N!000000000000!Z299!MAINT/ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !488210!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!Z!D !U!J!1!001!N!1G!Z!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !A! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: BREMERTON, KITSAP County, WASHINGTON, 98310

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.9 million to PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD for work described as: 200108!062699!1700!C4255 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING FIE!N4425501C1002 !A!N!*!N! !20010403!20110402!002835762!002835762!002835762!N!PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD!501 NORTH 2ND STREET !ELMA !WA!98541!07695!035!53!BREMERTON !KITSA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential cost savings through competition. 2. The contract's duration of over 11 years suggests a long-term need for these specialized rail support services. 3. Fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the outset, potentially limiting contractor risk but also reducing flexibility. 4. The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 488210 points to a niche service within the transportation sector. 5. Awarded to a single entity, highlighting potential single points of failure or reliance on a specific contractor's capabilities. 6. The geographic location of the contractor in Washington state may indicate regional operational focus or requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $16.9 million over approximately 11 years averages to about $1.5 million per year. Without comparable contract data for similar rail support services, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the pricing was determined upfront, but the lack of competition makes it challenging to assess if this price represents optimal value for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in specific circumstances like urgent needs or follow-on work. The absence of a competitive bidding process means there was no direct price comparison with other potential providers, which could impact the government's ability to secure the most cost-effective solution.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that typically arise from a competitive bidding environment. This could potentially lead to higher costs than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the U.S. Navy, which will receive essential rail support services. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, and operational support for rail infrastructure critical to naval facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Washington state, where Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad is located and likely performs its services. Workforce implications include the employment of individuals skilled in rail operations and maintenance by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher prices than a competed contract.
Sole-source award raises concerns about the thoroughness of market research and potential missed opportunities for cost savings.
Long contract duration without competition could lock the government into a potentially suboptimal pricing structure.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical rail support services could pose a risk if the contractor faces performance issues or financial instability.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government once the price is established.
Awarding to an existing entity may leverage established expertise and infrastructure for rail support.
The contract specifies a clear scope of work, aiding in performance monitoring.

Sector Analysis

The transportation sector, specifically rail transportation support, is a critical component of logistics and infrastructure for various industries, including defense. The NAICS code 488210, 'Support Activities for Rail Transportation,' encompasses services such as maintaining and repairing rail lines, yards, and related facilities. While specific market size data for this niche is not readily available, the Department of Defense's reliance on rail for moving personnel and equipment underscores the importance of such contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the specialized nature and sole-source award of this particular contract.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad, a single entity, does not indicate any direct benefit or impact on the small business ecosystem in this instance. Further analysis would be needed to determine if the prime contractor has a history of subcontracting with small businesses on other projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the firm fixed-price contract, focusing on delivery of services as specified. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with less public visibility into the negotiation and pricing justification. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Rail Operations Support
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Transportation Infrastructure Maintenance
Federal Rail Administration Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing justification.
Long contract duration without competition may not represent best value.
Potential for contractor dependency and reduced innovation.
Limited transparency regarding the justification for sole-source procurement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.9 million to PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD. 200108!062699!1700!C4255 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING FIE!N4425501C1002 !A!N!*!N! !20010403!20110402!002835762!002835762!002835762!N!PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD!501 NORTH 2ND STREET !ELMA !WA!98541!07695!035!53!BREMERTON !KITSAP !WASHINGTON!+000000750000!N!N!000000000000!Z299!MAINT/ALL OTHER NON-BUILDING FACILITIES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !488210!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-04-03. End: 2012-08-01.

What is the track record of Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad has been awarded federal contracts, including this one from the Department of the Navy. Analyzing their contract history would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or contract terminations, and the types and values of previous awards. A deeper dive would assess their success in meeting delivery schedules, quality standards, and budgetary constraints on prior engagements. Understanding their historical performance is crucial for evaluating the reliability and effectiveness of the contractor in fulfilling the current contract's requirements. Without access to a comprehensive federal contract database with performance metrics, a full assessment is limited, but the existence of this significant award suggests a level of established capability.

How does the $16.9 million award compare to similar rail support contracts awarded by the Navy or other DoD branches?

Benchmarking this $16.9 million award against similar rail support contracts is challenging due to the specialized nature of the services and the sole-source award. Typically, a competitive environment allows for direct price comparisons. However, the contract's duration of over 11 years (from initial award date to estimated end date) means the annual value is approximately $1.5 million. If comparable contracts for similar scope and duration were available, one could assess if this price falls within an expected range. The lack of competition here means that direct value-for-money comparisons are inherently difficult, and it's possible that a competitive process could have yielded a lower price or better terms.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for critical rail support services?

A sole-source award for critical rail support services presents several risks. Firstly, the absence of competition can lead to inflated pricing, as the government may not be getting the best possible value. Secondly, it creates a dependency on a single contractor, increasing vulnerability if that contractor experiences financial difficulties, operational failures, or decides to exit the market. This dependency can also reduce the incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve services beyond the contract's minimum requirements. Furthermore, without competitive pressure, there's less assurance of optimal performance and responsiveness. The government's leverage in negotiating terms and addressing issues is also diminished compared to a situation with multiple qualified bidders.

What is the historical spending pattern for rail support services within the Department of the Navy or DoD?

Historical spending on rail support services within the Department of the Navy and the broader DoD is likely substantial, given the military's reliance on rail for logistics and infrastructure. However, specific aggregated data for 'rail support services' as a distinct category can be difficult to isolate without detailed analysis of procurement databases. Spending patterns would fluctuate based on infrastructure needs, modernization projects, and operational tempo. Contracts for such services can range from routine maintenance to large-scale construction or upgrades of rail yards and lines. Understanding these patterns would involve examining spending trends over several fiscal years, identifying key contractors, and noting any shifts in procurement strategies, such as increased use of sole-source awards versus competitive bidding.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure the effectiveness of this contract?

The provided data does not detail specific performance metrics or oversight mechanisms for this contract. However, standard government contracting practices would typically involve a contract officer's representative (COR) or a contracting officer (CO) responsible for monitoring performance. Key performance indicators (KPIs) related to service delivery, response times, safety compliance, and infrastructure upkeep would likely be established in the contract's statement of work. Regular progress reports from the contractor, site inspections, and performance reviews would be expected. The firm fixed-price nature implies that the contractor is responsible for meeting the defined scope and quality, with financial implications for non-performance, though the exact enforcement mechanisms are not specified here.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Rail Transportation › Support Activities for Rail Transportation

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (UEI: 093609113)

Address: 501 NORTH 2ND STREET, ELMA, WA, 98541

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,946,950

Exercised Options: $16,946,950

Current Obligation: $16,946,950

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline