DoD's $16.8M Sea Fighter O&M Contract Awarded to Great Eastern Group

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,813,835 ($16.8M)

Contractor: Great Eastern Group, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-12-07

End Date: 2010-11-21

Contract Duration: 1,445 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEAFIGHTER

Place of Performance

Location: PLANTATION, BROWARD County, FLORIDA, 33317

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.8 million to GREAT EASTERN GROUP, INC. for work described as: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEAFIGHTER Key points: 1. The contract focuses on deep sea freight transportation services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a specific justification for limited competition. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 4. The sector is primarily Defense, with a specific focus on naval operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $16.8M over approximately 4 years for O&M of a specialized vessel appears within a reasonable range for such unique services. Benchmarking is difficult without more specific operational data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates a deviation from standard full and open competition, suggesting a specific reason for limiting the pool of bidders. This could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayer funds are utilized for specialized naval support services. The justification for excluding sources warrants scrutiny to ensure fair pricing and prevent potential overspending.

Public Impact

Ensures operational readiness of naval assets. Supports critical maritime defense capabilities. Potential for specialized job creation in maritime services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can incentivize contractor to increase costs.
Limited competition may lead to higher prices.
Lack of clear PSC code makes it difficult to benchmark.
Long contract duration (1445 days) increases risk exposure.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a competitive process, albeit with exclusions.
Supports essential defense operations.
Contractor has a definitive contract award.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically supporting naval operations. Spending benchmarks for specialized vessel maintenance and operation are highly variable and depend on the unique capabilities and requirements of the asset.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine if opportunities were missed.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's duration and cost-plus nature necessitate robust oversight from the Department of the Navy to ensure cost control and performance standards are met. Audits and regular performance reviews are crucial.

Related Government Programs

Deep Sea Freight Transportation
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type.
Limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
Long contract duration.
Lack of specific Product Service Code (PSC) for benchmarking.
No clear indication of small business participation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.8 million to GREAT EASTERN GROUP, INC.. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEAFIGHTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GREAT EASTERN GROUP, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-12-07. End: 2010-11-21.

What was the specific justification for excluding sources in the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' process, and how did it impact the final price?

The justification for excluding sources is critical for understanding the competitive landscape and its effect on pricing. Without this information, it's difficult to assess if the government obtained the best value. Typically, such exclusions are based on unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs that only a specific entity can meet. The impact on price could range from negligible if other capable vendors existed but were excluded for minor reasons, to significant if the exclusion created a near-monopoly situation.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how effectively were they monitored given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure?

Effective monitoring of KPIs is paramount for Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts to mitigate the risk of cost overruns. Key performance indicators would likely relate to vessel availability, operational readiness, maintenance schedules, and adherence to safety and environmental regulations. The Department of the Navy's oversight mechanisms, including regular reporting, inspections, and performance reviews, would be crucial in ensuring the contractor meets these KPIs while managing costs responsibly. The absence of detailed performance data makes a definitive assessment challenging.

How does the operational cost of the Sea Fighter vessel, as managed under this contract, compare to similar naval assets or platforms in terms of efficiency and effectiveness?

Comparing the operational cost of the Sea Fighter requires detailed data on its specific mission profile, technological capabilities, and the scope of services covered by this O&M contract. Without access to this granular information, a direct comparison to similar naval assets is speculative. The effectiveness is tied to the vessel's unique role in naval operations; if it fulfills a critical, specialized function that other platforms cannot, its cost may be justified despite appearing high in isolation. Benchmarking would ideally involve comparing O&M costs per operational hour or per mission.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water Transportation › Deep Sea Freight Transportation

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N6133106R0064

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7027 W BROWARD BLVD, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, 33317

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,101,561

Exercised Options: $18,101,560

Current Obligation: $16,813,835

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline