Army awards $10.3M habitat rehabilitation contract to L W Matteson Inc. for Minnesota project

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,329,468 ($10.3M)

Contractor: L W Matteson Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-08-08

End Date: 2008-12-31

Contract Duration: 511 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: POOL 8 ISLANDS , PHASE III, STAGE II HABITAT REHABILITATION

Place of Performance

Location: WINONA, WINONA County, MINNESOTA, 55987

State: Minnesota Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.3 million to L W MATTESON INC for work described as: POOL 8 ISLANDS , PHASE III, STAGE II HABITAT REHABILITATION Key points: 1. The contract value of $10.3 million represents a significant investment in environmental restoration. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are assessed to understand pricing efficiency. 3. Risk indicators are evaluated based on contract type and performance history. 4. Performance context is provided by comparing this award to similar environmental projects. 5. The contract falls within the 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' sector, indicating specialized infrastructure work. 6. The award was made to a single contractor, L W Matteson Inc., highlighting potential concentration.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.3 million for habitat rehabilitation appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale civil engineering projects. However, without specific benchmarks for the 'POOL 8 ISLANDS, PHASE III, STAGE II' project's scope and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Comparing this to similar Army Corps of Engineers habitat restoration projects in the Midwest could provide better context. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that cost overruns are primarily the contractor's responsibility, which can be a positive indicator for cost control.

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. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, two bids are sufficient to establish a competitive baseline and prevent a sole-source situation. The specific details of the bidding process, such as the number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria, would further illuminate the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to bid, which can lead to more competitive pricing and better value for the government's investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely environmental agencies and conservation organizations focused on restoring the habitat of Pool 8 Islands. The services delivered include habitat rehabilitation, which is crucial for ecological health and biodiversity in the region. The geographic impact is concentrated in Minnesota, specifically within the Pool 8 Islands area, likely along the Mississippi River. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for construction workers, environmental scientists, and project managers in the Minnesota region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen site conditions.
Dependence on a single contractor for the successful completion of a complex rehabilitation project.
Limited visibility into the specific rehabilitation techniques and their long-term effectiveness without further reporting.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
Fixed-price contract type can provide cost certainty for the government.
The project addresses critical habitat rehabilitation needs, indicating a positive environmental impact.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the 'Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction' sector, which encompasses a broad range of infrastructure development and environmental remediation projects. The Army Corps of Engineers is a major player in this sector, frequently awarding contracts for waterway management, flood control, and ecological restoration. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms specializing in civil engineering and environmental construction. Benchmarks for similar habitat rehabilitation projects would typically consider factors like acreage restored, complexity of ecological interventions, and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless L W Matteson Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses for specialized services. Further investigation into subcontracting goals and achievements would be necessary to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for ensuring contract compliance and project milestones are met. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, with penalties or incentives potentially tied to performance. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed project-specific oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs
Environmental Restoration Projects
Mississippi River Basin Initiatives
Habitat Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if rehabilitation needs are not fully defined.
Environmental risks associated with working in a sensitive habitat area.
Contractor performance risk on a complex civil engineering project.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.3 million to L W MATTESON INC. POOL 8 ISLANDS , PHASE III, STAGE II HABITAT REHABILITATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is L W MATTESON 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 $10.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-08. End: 2008-12-31.

What is the track record of L W Matteson Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of the Army?

L W Matteson Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily with the Department of the Army. Analyzing their past performance on similar civil engineering and construction projects would provide insight into their reliability and capability. Key metrics to examine include on-time completion rates, adherence to budget (especially for fixed-price contracts), and any documented performance issues or awards. A review of their contract history can reveal patterns of success or challenges, informing the assessment of risk for this current award. For instance, if they have a strong record of completing complex environmental projects on schedule and within budget, it suggests a lower risk profile for the Pool 8 Islands project.

How does the awarded amount of $10.3 million compare to similar habitat rehabilitation projects undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers?

To benchmark the $10.3 million award, it's essential to compare it with similar habitat rehabilitation projects managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, particularly those in the Midwest region and along the Mississippi River. Factors such as the scale of the project (e.g., acreage restored, specific ecological interventions), the complexity of the terrain, and the duration of the contract are critical for a fair comparison. If comparable projects of similar scope and complexity have been awarded in the range of $8-12 million, then this award appears reasonable. Conversely, if similar projects were significantly less expensive, it might indicate potential overpricing or a scope difference that warrants further investigation. Accessing historical contract databases and project reports from the Army Corps of Engineers would be crucial for this comparative analysis.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific habitat rehabilitation project, and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risks for this habitat rehabilitation project likely include unforeseen environmental conditions (e.g., soil contamination, unexpected hydrological challenges), potential delays due to weather or permitting, and the contractor's ability to execute complex ecological restoration tasks. Mitigation strategies are embedded within the contract structure and oversight. The fixed-price contract shifts some financial risk to the contractor. The Army Corps of Engineers' oversight, including site inspections and progress reviews, aims to identify and address issues proactively. Specific mitigation plans for environmental hazards or construction challenges would ideally be detailed in the project's technical specifications and risk management plan, which are often internal documents but inform the contract's terms.

What is the expected effectiveness and long-term impact of the habitat rehabilitation work at Pool 8 Islands?

The expected effectiveness and long-term impact of the habitat rehabilitation at Pool 8 Islands are centered on improving ecological health, enhancing biodiversity, and potentially increasing resilience to environmental changes. Specific goals likely include restoring native vegetation, improving water quality, creating or enhancing spawning grounds for fish, and providing better habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. The long-term impact hinges on the success of the implemented rehabilitation techniques and ongoing monitoring. A successful project could lead to a more stable and productive ecosystem, contributing to the overall health of the Upper Mississippi River. Measuring this impact would typically involve post-project ecological surveys and monitoring over several years.

How has federal spending on habitat restoration and civil engineering construction in Minnesota trended over the past five years?

Analyzing federal spending trends in Minnesota for habitat restoration and civil engineering construction over the past five years would provide context for this $10.3 million award. This involves examining contract data from agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and potentially the Department of the Interior. A rising trend in spending might indicate increased federal focus or need for such projects, potentially justifying the current award size. Conversely, a declining trend could signal budget constraints or shifting priorities. Understanding these patterns helps assess whether this contract represents a typical investment or an outlier. Data from sources like USAspending.gov or agency-specific reports would be necessary for this trend analysis.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Solicitation ID: W912ES07B0004

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation (UEI: 362899130)

Address: 1 SOUTH PT, BURLINGTON, IA, 52601

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,861,323

Exercised Options: $10,329,468

Current Obligation: $10,329,468

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline