Sell Your Marine Construction Business (2026): National Valuation, PE Buyer Pool & Jones Act Deal Mechanics

US marine construction is one of the deepest heavy-civil specialty consolidation stories of 2026. Capstone Partners’ Construction Services M&A Update (August 2025) reports financial sponsors paid an average 10.6x EV/EBITDA in construction services between 2018 and 2025 versus 7.5x for strategics, with deal volume rising 33.8% YoY in the trailing twelve months. Marine specifically sits at the upper end because the work is project-large, equipment-heavy, license-protected, and increasingly underwritten by IIJA appropriations, USACE’s port-deepening pipeline, and the offshore-wind marshalling-port build-out.

This hub guide covers the national US marine construction M&A market in 2026. We walk through 2024–2026 multiples by EBITDA tier, the recurring IDIQ/MATOC seat premium, the named buyer pool with CURRENT ownership detail (Weeks Marine under Kiewit since January 2023; GLDD under Saltchuk since April 2026 and delisted from NASDAQ; Arcosa Marine Products under Wynnchurch since April 2026; Manson Construction now 100% employee-owned ESOP; Baltimore Pile Driving under Geo-Management Construction Partners since October 2024), the six marine subverticals, the federal regulatory stack (USACE Section 10 / Section 404, USCG documentation, Jones Act 75% US-citizen ownership, Miller Act bonding, MARAD 46 USC 56101, NOAA / NMFS ESA Section 7, OSHA Maritime Standards), and the deal mechanics specific to marine sales. State-by-state pages are linked at the bottom of this guide.

How US marine construction businesses are valued in 2026 — the tiered framework

US marine construction is one of the more attractive heavy-civil specialty subsectors as we head into mid-2026, and the multiple gap between PE-backed buyers and pure strategics has widened materially. Capstone Partners’ Construction Services M&A Update (August 2025) reports that between 2018 and 2025, construction-services M&A multiples paid by financial sponsors averaged 10.6x EV/EBITDA versus 7.5x for strategics, with deal volume rising 33.8% YoY in the trailing twelve months. Marine specifically sits at the upper end of that range because the work is project-large, equipment-heavy, license-protected, and increasingly underwritten by federal and state appropriations. In practice, lower-middle-market marine constructors trade in roughly four tiers: sub-$2M EBITDA shops (single-state pier/bulkhead/dock specialists) typically clear 4.0x to 5.5x in a competitive process; $2M to $5M EBITDA regional contractors with mixed federal/municipal/private work and a documented bonding line of $25M+ clear 5.5x to 7.0x; $5M to $10M EBITDA platforms with multi-state pre-qualification, Jones Act documented vessels, and waterfront-engineering depth clear 7.5x to 9.0x; and over $10M EBITDA assets with a true regional moat in pier, wharf, and port-infrastructure work clear 9.0x to 11.0x, with strategic acquirers (Kiewit, Skanska, Sterling Infrastructure, Orion Group) occasionally pushing into the low-teens for branded scarcity assets like Weeks Marine (acquired by Kiewit, January 2023) or J.E. McAmis (acquired by Orion Group, February 2026, for ~$60M with a $1.4B opportunity pipeline disclosed). Revenue multiples are a less reliable lens in marine because gross margin dispersion is so wide: 0.6x to 1.2x of trailing revenue is typical, but well-run port-infrastructure platforms with offshore-wind staging exposure (think the Skanska-Equinor South Brooklyn Marine Terminal program) have been bid above 1.4x revenue. Multi-state platforms, those holding pre-qual in three or more state DOTs with documented federal MATOC seats, command a 1.5x to 2.5x EBITDA-turn premium over single-state operators of the same size, because cross-border bonding capacity and union/non-union flexibility are the binding scaling constraints.

Contractor profile	Typical multiple	What moves it
Sub-$2M EBITDA single-state pier/bulkhead/dock specialist	4.0–5.5x EBITDA	Limited bonding line, narrow geography, asset-light fleet
$2M–$5M EBITDA regional, $25M+ bond line	5.5–7.0x EBITDA	Mixed federal/municipal/private; documented surety; multi-state pre-qual emerging
$5M–$10M EBITDA platform, multi-state pre-qual + Jones Act fleet	7.5–9.0x EBITDA	Owned USCG-documented vessels, waterfront engineering, MATOC seats
$10M+ EBITDA regional moat	9.0–11.0x EBITDA	Branded scarcity; strategics push into the low teens
Offshore-wind staging specialist	10–13x EBITDA (revenue 1.4x+)	SBMT and Portsmouth Marine Terminal comparables drove a 2024–2026 ceiling

Recurring IDIQ/MATOC backlog — the single biggest valuation lever

Marine construction is mistakenly assumed to be project-only. In practice, the better assets carry a meaningful recurring book: USACE multi-year IDIQ/MATOC seats for navigation and shore-protection work, state DOT bridge-maintenance call-orders, port-authority maintenance contracts, and private marina/terminal-owner master service agreements. USACE’s MATOCs for marine and shore-protection consistently run as five-year vehicles with $300M to $500M ceilings: the 2019 nineteen-firm $495M dredging-and-shore-protection MATOC remains the template, and the Buffalo District 2022 IDIQ for design-bid-build marine work in the Lakes Districts confirms the pattern is alive. For a lower-middle-market shop, holding a seat on even one of those vehicles converts roughly 30 to 55% of revenue from one-off bid work to recurring, which is the single largest driver of multiple expansion. Empirically, marine constructors with greater than 40% recurring contract revenue clear 1.5x to 2.0x more on EBITDA than otherwise-identical bid-by-bid shops. The contract-mix piece matters: federal work (USACE, USCG, Navy Public Works) commands the highest recurring premium because the bonding, pre-qual, and security clearances are non-trivial barriers; municipal and port-authority work is second; pure private (developer, marina, waterfront homeowner) work is the lowest-quality recurring book. Equipment ownership versus chartering is the other lever. Owned, USCG-documented Jones Act vessels (deck barges, spuds, work boats, derrick cranes) underpin both gross margin and bondable backlog: buyers will normalize +0.5x to 1.0x EBITDA for a clean owned fleet versus an asset-light operator paying day-rate charter to Cashman, Weeks (now Kiewit), or Donjon.

Equipment depreciation add-backs and what platform buyers underwrite

Marine construction is one of the most adjustment-heavy verticals a sell-side advisor handles, and a good QofE will routinely add 25 to 60% to reported EBITDA. The biggest line is equipment depreciation. A mid-size marine contractor will carry $8M to $40M of book value across deck barges, spud barges, work boats, derrick cranes, vibratory and impact hammers, marine excavators, and tugs: with annual book depreciation of $1.5M to $5M against $2M to $8M of EBITDA. The cash maintenance capex is typically 30 to 50% of book depreciation on well-cared-for equipment, so a normalized add-back of 50 to 70% of book depreciation is defensible and is the single biggest contingent. Owner compensation normalization is the second line: founder-owners of $20M to $60M-revenue marine contractors are commonly paying themselves $400K to $1.2M with another $200K to $500K in family payroll, vessels titled to personal LLCs, and waterfront-property real-estate leases at above-market rates: these are recoverable on the sell side. Bonding capacity is treated as a transferable asset and is worth real value: a single-project bond line of $25M and an aggregate of $75M with a top-tier surety (Travelers, Liberty Mutual, Zurich, Chubb) typically requires 8 to 12% tangible-net-worth coverage, so the bonding relationship itself is worth a 0.25x to 0.5x EBITDA premium. DBE, WOSB, SDB, and HUBZone certifications generally do NOT transfer on a stock sale once control changes: the buyer must re-qualify under the new ownership. Following USDOT’s October 3, 2025 Interim Final Rule removing race- and sex-based presumptions of disadvantage, every applicant now needs an individualized social-and-economic-disadvantage showing, which has reduced the transferable value of those certifications further. Finally, vessel ownership is frequently sitting in a separate boat LLC: sellers should expect buyers to require either consolidation or a long-form bareboat charter at the close.

Platform-versus-tuck-in arbitrage — the 3 to 5 turn expansion

Marine construction in 2026 is one of the cleanest platform-arbitrage stories in heavy civil. The math is straightforward: a $2M to $4M EBITDA single-state pier/bulkhead/wharf specialist clears 4.5x to 6.0x as a stand-alone; the same shop tucked into a $10M+ EBITDA marine platform clears 9.0x to 11.0x on the platform’s blended multiple. That 3x to 5x turn of arbitrage is what’s driving the current consolidation wave. Three structural tailwinds are converging. First, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) deployed roughly $17B into port infrastructure, navigation, and resilience through the DOT’s Port Infrastructure Development Program and USACE’s expanded Construction General appropriation: the DOT-PIDP record $774M round in 2025 is widely viewed as a peak just ahead of the FY2026 IIJA sunset, which is itself driving a use-it-or-lose-it project surge. Second, the offshore-wind staging build-out, even with project-by-project policy noise, has produced the $861M Skanska-Equinor South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, the $223M Skanska-Virginia Port Authority Portsmouth Marine Terminal redevelopment, and the Humboldt Bay program: each requires multi-trade marine-civil-electrical integration that no single mid-market shop can self-perform. Third, USACE’s port-deepening program (Houston, Norfolk, Mobile, Charleston, Savannah, Brunswick, NY/NJ) has put a multi-year pipeline of dredging-and-wharf work in front of regional platforms. The integration premium is real: combining a pier/wharf builder, a piling specialist, a marine-electrical contractor, and a small dredge into one platform converts a 5.5x shop into an 8.5x to 9.5x asset because it can self-perform 80%+ of a typical port-modernization scope.

Who is buying US marine construction businesses in 2024–2026 — named platforms with CURRENT ownership

The buyer universe for US marine construction in mid-2026 is a tight, named set, and a sell-side process should treat it as such. Kiewit Corporation is the dominant strategic. Kiewit closed its acquisition of Weeks Marine in January 2023, including Weeks’ subsidiaries Healy Tibbitts Builders, McNally International, and North American Aggregates: that single transaction added marine as Kiewit’s eighth market segment and made Kiewit the top US heavy-marine contractor on revenue. Skanska USA Civil is the second major strategic, anchored by the $861M South Brooklyn Marine Terminal offshore-wind staging build and the $223M Virginia Port Authority Portsmouth Marine Terminal program. Sterling Infrastructure (NASDAQ: STRL) has been acquisitive through its E-Infrastructure Solutions segment and is a credible buyer for marine assets that touch port and energy infrastructure. Orion Group Holdings (NYSE: ORN) acquired J.E. McAmis Inc. and JEM Marine Leasing LLC in February 2026 for ~$60M (~$46M cash, $12M five-year sub note, $2M stock, plus contingent earn-out tied to backlog and pipeline), adding jetty, breakwater, dredging, environmental restoration, and dam-spillway capability: and importantly, Jones Act marine assets. Orion has telegraphed continued tuck-in acquisition appetite. Granite Construction (NYSE: GVA) is the public heavy-civil that is the lightest exposure to marine but a credible buyer for any marine-civil hybrid in California, Nevada, or the Pacific Northwest. On the publicly traded marine-engineering side, Bowman Consulting Group (NASDAQ: BWMN) entered marine engineering through its August 2022 acquisition of Anchor Consultants (Ahmad Nadeem PE founder, Chadds Ford, PA; $2.5M annualized net service billing at the time) and remains an active acquirer of waterfront engineering, permitting, and design firms. J.F. Brennan Company, a fourth-generation family-owned marine and environmental contractor out of La Crosse, WI, has been a serial tuck-in acquirer: Brennan acquired Harbor Offshore (HOI) in May 2022 (submarine cable, marine security barriers), Infrastructure Alternatives’ dredging and dewatering division in February 2023, Matteson Marine, and Viking Marine Services. Brennan also stood up an SBA 8(a) joint venture with Ahtna Marine and Construction (Alaska Native Regional Corporation): a textbook federal-contracting vehicle. Posillico Civil (Farmingdale, NY, fourth-generation family-owned) acquired Breakwater Marine Construction in 2022 to enter NY/NJ/CT marine. Manson Construction is 100% employee-owned (ESOP completed; Verit Advisors documented the transition; Manson originated in 1905 as a Puget Sound family pile-driving business) and is a strategic consolidator of West Coast and Hawaii marine work. Cashman (Jay M. Cashman, Inc., Quincy, MA) remains privately held by Jay Cashman personally and has a multi-disciplinary structure including Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Company, LLC (formed 2003). On the financial-buyer side, Wynnchurch Capital closed the carve-out acquisition of Arcosa Marine Products from Arcosa (NYSE: ACA) on April 1, 2026 for $450M cash: that’s barge manufacturing rather than marine construction, but it establishes Wynnchurch as an inland-marine platform sponsor. Cerberus Maritime, launched in August 2025 by Cerberus Capital with HD Hyundai and Korea Development Bank as a multi-billion-dollar US-maritime-revitalization strategy, is the new wild-card strategic buyer for US marine infrastructure and shipbuilding-adjacent assets. New Mountain Capital’s Azuria Water Solutions (the April 23, 2026 merger of legacy Azuria and Inframark: $5.5B EV continuation vehicle, $2.4B raised, the largest infrastructure-services continuation vehicle to date) is the water-infrastructure adjacency: relevant for marine contractors with municipal water and wastewater interface scope. Saltchuk Resources, the Seattle-based family-owned maritime and logistics platform, acquired Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Corporation (NASDAQ: GLDD) for $1.5B EV / $1.2B equity ($17/share cash tender) on April 1, 2026: that moved the largest US dredger from public ownership into a private maritime conglomerate and signals further Saltchuk appetite for adjacent marine assets.

Marine construction sub-verticals and how each is valued

Marine construction breaks cleanly into six subverticals, each priced differently. Pier and wharf construction is the highest-multiple subvertical: it’s the work product that anchors port-modernization programs, requires the deepest engineering and piling capability, and is typically tied to long-cycle public-owner contracts; well-run pier/wharf specialists clear 7.5x to 9.5x. Bulkhead and seawall work is the most fragmented subvertical, dominated by small single-state and single-county contractors (Florida alone has hundreds), with the better mid-market shops doing both private waterfront and municipal storm-protection work and clearing 5.0x to 6.5x. Port infrastructure (container yards, terminal aprons, cargo wharves, ro-ro berths) is the most capex-intensive and cyclically tied to global trade: high-multiple but lumpy. Offshore-wind staging and marshalling-port work is the newest subvertical, with the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, Portsmouth Marine Terminal, Humboldt Bay, and the New England Wind program defining the pipeline; specialists with offshore-wind reference projects clear premium multiples but face concentration risk. Bridge marine work (over-water piling, cofferdams, falsework for highway and rail bridge piers) is the most state-DOT-dependent subvertical, with multi-state DOT pre-qualification as the moat. Dock construction (marinas, ferry terminals, recreational and commercial docks, floating-dock systems) is the most consumer-cyclical subvertical and the easiest entry point: multiples are lower (4.5x to 6.0x), but a roll-up of marina-services dock contractors is one of the more interesting platform plays.

Federal regulatory stack

Marine construction is one of the most permit-heavy, license-heavy, and federally-overlaid specialty trades in heavy civil, and the regulatory stack is itself a moat. USACE permits are the starting point: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) requires authorization for any structure in or over navigable waters or any work affecting their course, condition, or capacity, while Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) requires authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The 38 USACE district offices process Section 10 and Section 404 jointly; Nationwide Permits cover routine work with pre-approved conditions while Individual Permits (with public notice and EIS where applicable) cover larger or sensitive scope. US Coast Guard governs vessel operations (USCG documentation, COI Certificate of Inspection on inspected vessels, Subchapter L/M for towing, Subchapter T for small passenger), crew certifications (Merchant Mariner Credentials), and Bridge Permits for bridges over navigable waters. EPA and state environmental layer in NPDES (construction stormwater under EPA Construction General Permit and state equivalents), 40 CFR Part 230 (Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines), and state sediment-quality criteria. NOAA/NMFS Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations are required where listed marine species or designated critical habitat are present: for marine construction in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this includes right whales, sturgeon, and sea turtles, and the timing windows that result (in-water work moratoriums) drive project sequencing. The Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) requires that goods transported by water between US points be carried on US-built, US-flagged, US-owned (at least 75% US-citizen-owned), US-crewed vessels: for marine M&A this controls vessel-transfer mechanics in any cross-border transaction and is the binding constraint on foreign ownership of marine assets. Miller Act bonding (40 USC 3131-3134) requires performance and payment bonds on federal construction contracts exceeding $150K (with payment bonds required on contracts over $35K and performance bonds reduced or waived on contracts $150K and under at the contracting officer’s discretion). State Little Miller Acts mirror Miller Act bonding on state work, with thresholds and percentages varying by state. MARAD (US Maritime Administration) approval is required for sale or transfer of certain US-documented vessels to non-US ownership under 46 USC 56101. CFR Title 33 (Navigation and Navigable Waters) and CFR Title 46 (Shipping) govern most of the operational rulebook. OSHA Maritime Standards (29 CFR 1915 shipyard, 1917 marine terminals, 1918 longshoring) apply to overwater work and shoreside vessel-loading operations and are stricter than 1926 construction standards in several areas (fall protection, confined space, hot work). DBE / WOSB / SDB / HUBZone / 8(a) certifications are generally not transferable on a change of control: buyers re-qualify under the new ownership and must satisfy the post-October-3-2025 USDOT Interim Final Rule individualized-disadvantage showing.

Deal mechanics specific to marine construction sales

Marine M&A deal mechanics are noticeably different from generic specialty-construction deals because of vessels, bonding, and federal contracting. Vessel ownership transfer requires USCG documentation amendments (Abstract of Title at the National Vessel Documentation Center), Jones Act compliance review (75% US-citizen ownership and US-build/US-flag confirmation), MARAD notification or approval for vessels over certain thresholds, and frequently a pre-close vessel survey by an accredited marine surveyor (AMS or SAMS). Asset-versus-stock structuring is uniquely consequential in marine because Jones Act vessel transfer in an asset deal triggers a fresh USCG title chain (with the attendant filing and recording delays), while a stock deal preserves the title chain but requires more thorough environmental and bonding diligence. The current market norm is stock deals with carve-outs for owner-titled equipment, but asset deals are common for sub-$3M EBITDA shops. Bonding capacity is a transferable asset in the economic sense: sureties underwrite the post-close balance sheet and management, so a credible buyer can preserve or expand a single-project line of $25M and an aggregate of $75M without re-papering. The diligence question is whether the existing surety relationship ports or whether the buyer brings its own surety; most lower-middle-market deals end up with new surety arrangements within 12 months of close. Backlog in marine is the single most-scrutinized diligence item: buyers expect a clean schedule of awarded USACE/USCG/Navy contracts (with award dates, performance windows, change-order history, and remaining-to-bill), state DOT and port-authority awards, private-owner master service agreements, and a separate pipeline of bid and proposal opportunities. Multi-year IDIQ/MATOC seats are the highest-quality backlog. Pre-qualification with state DOTs is a significant transferable asset: sellers should expect QofE to reconcile pre-qual letters across all states of operation and surface any contingent disqualifications. Key-person risk centers on the principal-in-charge marine engineer (PE-licensed in operating states), the marine superintendent, the lead vessel captains, and the chief estimator: buyers will require 2 to 3 year employment agreements with non-competes for at least three named individuals. Insurance stack is unique: USL&H (29 USC 901, US Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: not coverable under generic workers’ comp), Jones Act coverage for crew, Maritime Employers Liability (MEL), Marine General Liability, hull and P&I (Protection and Indemnity) on owned vessels, plus environmental impairment liability for any contaminated-sediment exposure. Environmental indemnity is the long-tail diligence issue: buyers will request specific reps and warranties around contaminated sediment, PFAS, NPDES violations, and historic disposal sites, with survival typically 3 to 5 years and caps at 10 to 25% of purchase price.

The marine workforce succession crisis

Marine construction is firmly in the structural succession window. The 2024 Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data puts median age of construction laborers at the upper end of the trades curve, and marine work skews older still because the apprenticeship pipelines are narrower: the four-year Pile Drivers Local 34 (Carpenters Pile Drivers, Divers, Bridge, Wharf and Dock Builders, Northern California / Oregon / Washington) program is the model, but the supply is structurally constrained. The aging-workforce piece compounds at the principal-owner level: a typical $25M to $60M revenue marine contractor in 2026 is a second- or third-generation family business whose founders are 55 to 75 and whose adult children either chose a different career or are not majority equity-capable. That is precisely the demographic profile that creates the current sell-side wave. Skilled-vessel-operator shortage is the tighter constraint: USCG-credentialed work-boat captains, derrick-crane operators (NCCCO-certified for marine work), and licensed marine engineers are in tight supply, and the bar to bring in immigrant labor is structurally higher in marine than in landside construction because of Jones Act crewing rules (75% US citizens or permanent residents on Jones Act vessels). Captain and mate succession in 100-to-200-person family firms is the single hardest soft-asset to transfer at close. The macro window: IIJA-funded port modernization, USACE port-deepening, offshore-wind staging, federal climate-resilience appropriations: combined with the demographic window, is why 2024 to 2026 is being widely characterized by sell-side advisors as the structural sell-side moment for marine construction.

US marine construction sale 2026 outlook

The 2024–2026 window is being widely characterized by sell-side advisors as the structural sell-side moment for US marine construction. The IIJA-funded port modernization pipeline, USACE port-deepening program, offshore-wind staging build-out, FY2026 IIJA sunset driving a use-it-or-lose-it project surge, and the demographic wave of second- and third-generation founder retirements (founders 55–75 with adult children who chose different careers) combine to create the cleanest macro-plus-demographic alignment heavy civil has seen since the early 2000s. The named buyer pool is small and well-funded. A seller running a competitive process across that pool in 2026 captures the cycle premium; one who waits past the IIJA sunset risks selling into normalization.

Sell your marine construction business by state

Detailed state-by-state guidance is available for all 50 states and DC. Each state guide covers the local USACE district, state DOT pre-qualification, in-water work windows, and state-specific buyer pool detail.

• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Alabama
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Alaska
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Arizona
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Arkansas
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in California
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Colorado
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Connecticut
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Delaware
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in District of Columbia
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Florida
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Georgia
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Hawaii
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Idaho
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Illinois
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Indiana
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Iowa
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Kansas
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Kentucky
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Louisiana
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Maine
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Maryland
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Massachusetts
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Michigan
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Minnesota
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Mississippi
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Missouri
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Montana
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Nebraska
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Nevada
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in New Hampshire
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in New Jersey
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in New Mexico
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in New York
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in North Carolina
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in North Dakota
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Ohio
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Oklahoma
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Oregon
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Pennsylvania
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Rhode Island
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in South Carolina
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in South Dakota
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Tennessee
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Texas
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Utah
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Vermont
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Virginia
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Washington
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in West Virginia
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Wisconsin
• Sell Your Marine Construction Business in Wyoming

This guide reflects 2026 US marine construction M&A market conditions and CT Acquisitions’ direct work with active strategic and PE buyers. Multiples are directional, not a guarantee; every contractor is underwritten on its own owned-vessel fleet, USACE / state DOT pre-qualification, bonding capacity, recurring IDIQ/MATOC backlog, adjusted EBITDA, and growth profile. Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 Clean Water Act, US Coast Guard documentation, the Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920), Miller Act bonding (40 USC 3131-3134), MARAD vessel-transfer requirements (46 USC 56101), NOAA / NMFS ESA Section 7 in-water work windows, OSHA Maritime Standards (29 CFR 1915 / 1917 / 1918), USL&H (29 USC 901), and the USDOT October 3, 2025 Interim Final Rule on DBE / WOSB / SDB / HUBZone transferability are in active transition — confirm current requirements with qualified marine-construction counsel before relying on them in a transaction.