Agriculture Department awards $2.8M environmental consulting contract to Alpha Facilities Solutions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $282,309 ($282.3K)

Contractor: Alpha Facilities Solutions, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2026-04-01

End Date: 2027-03-31

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $776/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ARS SMS CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: BELTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20705

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $282,309 to ALPHA FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: ARS SMS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 364 days indicates a short-term need for services. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Environmental consulting services are crucial for regulatory compliance and sustainable practices. 5. The award is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541620 points to specialized environmental expertise.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $2.8 million for a 364-day period for environmental consulting services appears reasonable. Without specific benchmarks for the exact scope of work, it's difficult to provide a precise per-unit cost comparison. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the agency has a clear understanding of the required services and has negotiated a price that accounts for contractor risk. The award being a delivery order implies it's part of a pre-competed contract, which can sometimes lead to more efficient pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data shows two bids were received. While two bidders is a relatively low number for a full and open competition, it still suggests that the agency sought multiple offers and provided an opportunity for a range of contractors to compete. This level of competition is generally expected to promote price discovery and ensure a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through multiple bids. This approach minimizes the risk of overpaying for necessary services.

Public Impact

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) benefits from specialized environmental consulting services. Services likely support compliance with environmental regulations and sustainable land management practices. The contract's geographic impact is primarily focused on Maryland, where the delivery order is managed. The contract may indirectly support the agricultural sector by ensuring research facilities operate within environmental guidelines.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition could indicate potential barriers to entry or a niche market.
The delivery order nature of the award means the underlying contract vehicle's competition level is also a factor in overall value.
The specific environmental consulting services required are not detailed, making a full assessment of value challenging.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, maximizing potential contractor participation.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the agency.
The contract is managed by the Agricultural Research Service, a key agency within the USDA focused on research.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting is a significant sector within professional services, encompassing a wide range of activities from impact assessments to regulatory compliance and remediation. The market is characterized by specialized firms with expertise in areas like ecology, hydrology, and environmental law. This contract, valued at $2.8 million for a year, falls within the typical range for specialized consulting engagements supporting government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific services rendered, but the NAICS code 541620 suggests a focus on scientific and technical consulting.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from this specific award. The competition was open, which theoretically allows small businesses to bid if they possess the required qualifications, but the lack of a specific set-aside means they are competing against larger firms without preferential treatment.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) within the Department of Agriculture. As a delivery order under a larger contract, oversight may also involve the contracting office that managed the base contract. Transparency is facilitated by public contract databases where award details are recorded. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed budget. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Consulting Services
Agricultural Research Service Contracts
Department of Agriculture Professional Services
Federal Environmental Compliance Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Potential for scope creep if SOW is not precise
Contractor performance risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $282,309 to ALPHA FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC. ARS SMS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALPHA FACILITIES SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $282,309.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-01. End: 2027-03-31.

What is the track record of Alpha Facilities Solutions, LLC with federal contracts?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess Alpha Facilities Solutions, LLC's track record. Key metrics to examine would include the number of previous federal awards, their total value, the agencies they have contracted with, and their performance ratings if available. Understanding their history with similar environmental consulting services, particularly for agricultural or research-focused agencies, would provide valuable context. A history of successful contract completion, adherence to schedules, and positive performance feedback would indicate a lower risk profile for this current award. Conversely, a history of contract disputes, performance issues, or terminations could raise concerns about their capability to deliver on this $2.8 million contract.

How does the $2.8 million value compare to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by the USDA or ARS?

Benchmarking the $2.8 million value requires comparing it against similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) or specifically the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Factors such as contract duration (364 days), scope of work (environmental consulting), and contract type (firm-fixed-price) are crucial for a meaningful comparison. If ARS has recently awarded contracts for similar services over a comparable period, analyzing those values can indicate whether this award is within an expected range. A higher value than comparable contracts might suggest a less competitive bidding environment or a more complex scope, while a lower value could indicate strong competition or a simpler service requirement. Without access to a detailed database of comparable ARS/USDA environmental consulting contracts, a precise comparison is difficult, but the value appears moderate for a year-long specialized service.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract for the government?

The primary risks for the government in this contract revolve around the potential for the contractor, Alpha Facilities Solutions, LLC, to underperform or fail to meet the specified environmental consulting requirements. Given the firm-fixed-price structure, the risk of cost overruns is primarily on the contractor, but scope creep or inadequate service delivery could still lead to delays or the need for corrective actions, impacting research timelines. Another risk is the limited competition, with only two bids received. This could mean the government did not achieve the most favorable pricing possible, or that the available pool of qualified contractors for this specific niche is small. Ensuring the contractor possesses the necessary specialized expertise throughout the contract duration is also a risk, especially if key personnel depart.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money in this context?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and understood, which is presumed for environmental consulting services. FFP shifts the primary cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their resources efficiently to maintain profitability. This means the government pays a set price, providing budget certainty. For the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), this structure helps control spending on environmental consulting. The effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimate and the clarity of the statement of work; if the scope is poorly defined, the contractor may cut corners, or change orders could increase costs, diminishing the value proposition. However, assuming a well-defined scope, FFP is a strong mechanism for cost control.

What does the limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition imply about the market for these services?

The fact that only two bids were received in a full and open competition for this $2.8 million environmental consulting contract suggests several possibilities about the market for these specific services. It could indicate that the market is relatively niche, requiring highly specialized expertise that only a few firms possess. Alternatively, there might be barriers to entry for other potential bidders, such as stringent pre-qualification requirements, the complexity of the bidding process, or the specific geographic location of the work. It's also possible that the timing of the solicitation or the perceived profitability of the contract did not attract a larger pool of interested parties. This limited competition could potentially lead to higher prices than if more bidders were involved, as the contractor faces less pressure to offer the most competitive rates.

What is the historical spending pattern for environmental consulting services by the Agricultural Research Service?

To determine the historical spending pattern for environmental consulting services by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), one would need to analyze past contract awards over several fiscal years. This analysis should focus on contracts with NAICS code 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services) or similar codes. Key data points to examine include the total annual spending on such services, the average contract value, the number of contracts awarded, and the primary contractors receiving these awards. Understanding this historical context helps in assessing whether the current $2.8 million award is an anomaly, an increase, or consistent with past spending levels. It also reveals trends in the types of environmental services ARS procures and the market dynamics influencing pricing over time.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Environmental Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 1232SA26Q0116

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Alpha Facilities Solutions LLC

Address: 4085 CIBOLO CANYONS, SAN ANTONIO, TX, 78261

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,066,452

Exercised Options: $2,003,150

Current Obligation: $282,309

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QRAA20D000T

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline