Army awards $29M contract for dredging services, with a significant portion allocated to Pennsylvania

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,086,450 ($29.1M)

Contractor: Amherst Madison, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-06-01

End Date: 2022-09-30

Contract Duration: 851 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: POOL 3 DREDGING-OPTION PERIOD 2 (YEAR 3)

Place of Performance

Location: MONESSEN, WESTMORELAND County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15062

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.1 million to AMHERST MADISON, INC. for work described as: POOL 3 DREDGING-OPTION PERIOD 2 (YEAR 3) Key points: 1. Contract value indicates substantial investment in critical infrastructure maintenance. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding environment for this service. 3. Performance period of over two years allows for sustained project execution. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. Geographic focus on Pennsylvania highlights regional infrastructure needs. 6. The contract's duration and value suggest a significant operational scope.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $29 million for dredging services appears reasonable given the multi-year performance period and the nature of heavy civil engineering construction. Benchmarking against similar large-scale dredging contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government has negotiated a set price, which can be advantageous if costs are well-managed by the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and considered. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, encouraging bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions to secure the award. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the designation suggests a robust competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and ensuring that the government receives the most advantageous offer available.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely entities requiring navigable waterways for commerce and transportation, particularly within Pennsylvania. Services delivered include essential dredging to maintain or improve water depth in ports, harbors, or rivers. The geographic impact is concentrated in Pennsylvania, addressing specific regional infrastructure requirements. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for skilled labor in dredging operations, engineering, and project management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise, despite the fixed-price nature.
Dependence on contractor's specialized equipment and personnel availability.
Risk of schedule delays due to weather or environmental factors impacting dredging operations.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Multi-year contract allows for sustained focus and efficient execution of dredging tasks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector, specifically focusing on marine construction and maintenance. The dredging market is critical for maintaining navigable waterways, supporting maritime trade and transportation. Spending in this sector can fluctuate based on infrastructure investment cycles and the condition of existing waterways. Comparable benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale dredging projects awarded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a small business set-aside. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without specific set-aside goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is unclear, though prime contractors may engage small businesses for specialized support.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs
Port and Waterway Infrastructure Projects
Coastal Navigation Dredging Contracts
Inland Waterways Dredging

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen site conditions arise.
Dependence on contractor's specialized equipment and personnel availability.
Risk of schedule delays due to weather or environmental factors impacting dredging operations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.1 million to AMHERST MADISON, INC.. POOL 3 DREDGING-OPTION PERIOD 2 (YEAR 3)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMHERST MADISON, 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 $29.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-06-01. End: 2022-09-30.

What is the historical spending trend for dredging services by the Department of the Army in Pennsylvania?

Analyzing historical spending data for dredging services by the Department of the Army specifically within Pennsylvania would require accessing detailed contract databases and filtering by agency, geographic location, and service type over several fiscal years. Without direct access to such granular historical data, it's challenging to provide a precise trend. However, federal spending on dredging is often cyclical, influenced by infrastructure needs, congressional appropriations, and the condition of waterways. Major projects or recurring maintenance requirements in areas like the Delaware River or other key Pennsylvania waterways would likely drive consistent or increasing investment. A review of past Army Corps of Engineers budgets and contract awards for the region would be necessary for a comprehensive trend analysis.

How does the per-unit cost of this dredging contract compare to similar projects awarded by other federal agencies?

A direct per-unit cost comparison for this dredging contract is difficult without specific unit metrics (e.g., cost per cubic yard dredged, cost per linear foot of channel maintained) and detailed project scopes. The provided data lacks these granular details. However, to benchmark, one would typically compare the contract's total value and duration against similar dredging projects awarded by agencies like the Navy (for port maintenance), the Coast Guard, or the Department of Transportation (for waterway improvements). Factors such as geographic location (labor and material costs), type of material dredged (e.g., sand, silt, rock), required depth, and environmental mitigation measures significantly influence per-unit costs. A comprehensive analysis would involve identifying comparable projects and normalizing costs based on these influencing factors.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance on this dredging contract?

While specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided summary, typical performance indicators for dredging contracts often include adherence to schedule, meeting specified dredging depths and volumes, maintaining water quality standards during operations, and minimizing environmental impact. The contractor's ability to complete the work within the firm fixed-price budget is also a critical performance measure. The contract likely includes clauses requiring regular progress reports, site inspections by a government representative (COR), and potentially penalties for delays or failure to meet technical specifications. Successful completion of each delivery order and the overall contract duration would be assessed against these criteria.

What is the track record of Amherst Madison, Inc. in performing similar large-scale federal dredging contracts?

Assessing the track record of Amherst Madison, Inc. requires reviewing their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving dredging and heavy civil engineering. Information on contract history, including past awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any past disputes or terminations, would be crucial. A positive track record would indicate successful completion of similar projects on time and within budget, with satisfactory quality. Conversely, a history of performance issues or contract disputes might raise concerns. Without access to detailed performance data or a comprehensive contract history for Amherst Madison, Inc., a definitive assessment of their track record is not possible from the provided data alone.

What are the potential risks associated with the firm fixed-price contract type for this dredging project?

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for a dredging project lies in the potential for the contractor to incur losses if their cost estimates are inaccurate or if unforeseen circumstances significantly increase their expenses. While FFP shifts cost risk to the contractor, it can also incentivize them to cut corners on quality or safety if profit margins are squeezed. For the government, the risk is that the contractor might not have sufficient incentive to control costs beyond the agreed-upon price, or that the initial price negotiated might be higher than necessary if competition was weak. However, for well-defined scopes like dredging, FFP is often preferred for budget predictability. The contractor must meticulously estimate all costs, including labor, equipment, fuel, disposal, and potential environmental mitigation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction › Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W911WN17B8005

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Port Amherst Ltd.

Address: 2 PORT AMHERST DR, CHARLESTON, WV, 25306

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,086,450

Exercised Options: $29,086,450

Current Obligation: $29,086,450

Actual Outlays: $4,869,749

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911WN17D8000

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline