GSA awards $19.5M for energy conservation measure verification across 3 states, spanning over 20 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,458,970 ($19.5M)

Contractor: ABM Facility Support Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2020-10-01

End Date: 2044-10-01

Contract Duration: 8,766 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INSTALLATION AND LONG TERM MEASUREMENT&VERIFICATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN 9 FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN NORTH CAROLINA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA.

Place of Performance

Location: RALEIGH, WAKE County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27601

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $19.5 million to ABM FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC for work described as: INSTALLATION AND LONG TERM MEASUREMENT&VERIFICATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN 9 FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN NORTH CAROLINA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA. Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a long-term, multi-state energy efficiency project. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Long contract duration (24 years) may introduce risks related to technological obsolescence and changing energy markets. 4. Performance period is extensive, requiring sustained oversight. 5. Project focuses on essential infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. 6. Contract type (firm fixed price) shifts risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $19.5 million over 24 years for energy conservation measure installation and verification across nine federal buildings is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar long-term energy performance contracts is challenging due to the specific scope and duration. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if managed effectively. The extended timeline implies a need for robust measurement and verification to ensure long-term savings.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With 12 bids received, the level of competition was robust. This suggests that the General Services Administration (GSA) likely received competitive pricing and a range of technical solutions. A higher number of bidders generally correlates with better price discovery and a greater likelihood of selecting the best value offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the most cost-effective solution for energy conservation measures, potentially leading to lower overall energy expenditures for the government.

Public Impact

Federal agencies occupying the nine specified buildings will benefit from potentially reduced energy costs. The project delivers services related to energy conservation and long-term performance monitoring. Geographic impact includes federal facilities in North Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama. The contract supports the federal government's sustainability goals and energy efficiency initiatives. Workforce implications include potential employment for engineers, technicians, and project managers involved in installation and verification.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (24 years) increases the risk of technological obsolescence and market shifts impacting energy costs.
Sustained performance verification over two decades requires diligent oversight to ensure contractor accountability.
Potential for scope creep or change orders over such an extended period.
Reliance on a single contractor for a long duration could limit future flexibility.
Ensuring consistent energy savings realization over 24 years presents a management challenge.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition with 12 bidders suggests a competitive market and potentially favorable pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Focus on energy conservation aligns with federal sustainability mandates.
Long-term nature allows for sustained performance and potential for significant energy savings.
Delivery order structure allows for phased implementation and management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically related to energy efficiency and building management. The federal government is a significant investor in energy-saving technologies and services to reduce operational costs and meet sustainability targets. Comparable spending benchmarks for long-term energy performance contracts vary widely based on building size, scope of work, and energy prices. The market for energy services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized solutions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. While ABM Facility Support Services, LLC is the prime contractor, there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor engages small businesses for specialized services or supplies, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract and the long-term measurement and verification requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal contract databases, though detailed performance reports may not be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)
Building Operations and Maintenance Contracts
Federal Building Modernization Initiatives

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Potential for technological obsolescence
Energy market volatility
Sustained performance monitoring required

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $19.5 million to ABM FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC. INSTALLATION AND LONG TERM MEASUREMENT&VERIFICATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN 9 FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN NORTH CAROLINA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ABM FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-10-01. End: 2044-10-01.

What is the historical spending pattern for energy conservation measure installation and verification contracts by the GSA?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar GSA contracts requires access to detailed federal procurement data over multiple fiscal years. Generally, federal spending on energy efficiency has seen fluctuations driven by legislative mandates, budget appropriations, and administration priorities. Contracts for energy conservation measures can range from short-term projects for specific upgrades to long-term performance-based contracts like this one. The GSA, as a major property manager, consistently invests in building upgrades and operational efficiencies. Understanding the historical trend for this specific type of service would involve looking at the number of awards, average contract values, and the duration of similar long-term verification contracts awarded by GSA and other agencies. Without specific historical data for this niche, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but the trend generally reflects a growing emphasis on sustainability and cost reduction in federal facilities.

How does the per-unit cost of energy savings verification compare to industry benchmarks for similar federal buildings?

Determining a precise 'per-unit cost' for energy savings verification is complex, as it's often bundled with installation and depends heavily on the specific technologies deployed and the baseline energy usage of the buildings. Industry benchmarks for energy performance contracts typically focus on the expected percentage of energy savings guaranteed by the contractor, rather than a direct per-unit cost for the verification service itself. For this $19.5 million contract spanning 24 years and covering nine buildings, the cost of verification is integrated into the overall project. A key metric would be the contractor's guaranteed savings versus the total contract cost. If the guaranteed savings significantly outweigh the contract value, it suggests good value. However, without detailed breakdowns of installation versus verification costs and specific building energy profiles, a direct comparison to industry benchmarks for verification services alone is not feasible from the provided data.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this energy conservation project?

Key performance indicators for this contract would likely revolve around the successful installation of specified energy conservation measures (ECMs) and, crucially, the realization of projected energy savings over the contract's long duration. Specific KPIs could include: 1. Percentage of ECMs installed according to specifications. 2. Measured energy savings (e.g., kilowatt-hours, British thermal units) compared to baseline data. 3. Cost savings achieved from reduced energy consumption. 4. System uptime and reliability of newly installed equipment. 5. Compliance with environmental and safety standards during installation. 6. Accuracy and timeliness of measurement and verification (M&V) reports submitted by the contractor. The firm fixed-price nature and the long-term aspect emphasize the importance of robust M&V to ensure the government receives the promised benefits throughout the 24-year period.

What is ABM Facility Support Services, LLC's track record with similar long-term energy performance contracts?

ABM Facility Support Services, LLC, is a subsidiary of ABM Industries, a large facilities solutions provider with a significant presence in government contracting. ABM has a history of performing large-scale facility management, maintenance, and energy services for various government agencies. While specific details on their track record with *this exact type* of 24-year energy conservation measure installation and verification contract are not provided in the summary data, their broader experience in facility services suggests they possess the capabilities to manage such projects. Government contract databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would typically contain performance ratings and past performance information for contractors on previous awards. A thorough review of their contract history would be necessary to fully assess their specific expertise and success rate with comparable long-duration, performance-based energy contracts.

What are the potential risks associated with the 24-year duration of this contract?

The 24-year duration presents several significant risks. Firstly, technological obsolescence is a major concern; energy-saving technologies installed today may be outdated or less efficient within a decade, potentially diminishing the contract's value over time. Secondly, energy market fluctuations (prices of electricity, natural gas, etc.) can change unpredictably over two decades, impacting the baseline for savings calculations and potentially making the contractor's projections inaccurate or the guaranteed savings less impactful. Thirdly, changes in federal regulations, sustainability goals, or building usage patterns could necessitate modifications to the original scope, leading to potential disputes or change orders. Lastly, maintaining consistent oversight and ensuring the contractor's sustained performance and financial stability over such an extended period requires significant and ongoing management effort from the GSA.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact risk allocation and potential for cost savings?

A Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type, as used here, places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor, ABM Facility Support Services, LLC. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This allocation is generally favorable for the government, as it provides cost certainty and incentivizes the contractor to manage their expenses efficiently. For potential cost savings, the FFP structure encourages the contractor to find the most cost-effective methods for installation and verification. However, it can also lead to the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality or service to maintain profitability if not rigorously overseen. The success of an FFP contract often hinges on a well-defined scope of work and robust performance monitoring to ensure quality is not sacrificed for cost.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: EQ4PME-20-0015

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6731 COLUMBIA GATEWAY DR STE 200, COLUMBIA, MD, 21046

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,217,980

Exercised Options: $19,458,970

Current Obligation: $19,458,970

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 9

Total Subaward Amount: $8,114,280

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DEEE0008025

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline