GSA awards $3.4M environmental services contract to Sustainment & Restoration Services, LLC for Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,411,052 ($3.4M)

Contractor: Sustainment & Restoration Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2023-05-03

End Date: 2026-05-02

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FENCE TO FENCE (F2) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (ES) BUCKLEY SPACE FORCE BASE (SFB) AND FE WARREN AIR FORCE BASE (AFB)

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80914

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3.4 million to SUSTAINMENT & RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC for work described as: FENCE TO FENCE (F2) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (ES) BUCKLEY SPACE FORCE BASE (SFB) AND FE WARREN AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about competitive pricing. 2. The contract's fixed-price nature aims to control costs for environmental services. 3. Duration of 1095 days suggests a need for long-term environmental management. 4. Services include remediation and sustainment, critical for base operations. 5. Geographic focus on Colorado and Wyoming bases indicates regional environmental needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $3.41 million over three years for environmental services at two Air Force bases appears to be within a reasonable range for such specialized work. However, without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or identify potential cost savings. The fixed-firm-price contract type suggests an attempt to cap costs, but the absence of competition limits the ability to assess value for money definitively. Further analysis would require comparing this award to similar environmental remediation contracts awarded competitively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically used when only one vendor is capable of providing the required services, or in specific circumstances where competition is not feasible or advantageous. The lack of multiple bidders means that price discovery through competition was not utilized, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The justification for this sole-source award would need to be examined to understand the specific circumstances.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition for this contract means taxpayers may not have benefited from the cost savings typically achieved through a bidding process. The government may have paid a premium due to the lack of alternative offers.

Public Impact

Provides essential environmental remediation and sustainment services for Buckley Space Force Base and F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Ensures compliance with environmental regulations at critical military installations. Supports the operational readiness of the Air Force and Space Force by maintaining environmental integrity. Likely involves a workforce skilled in environmental science, engineering, and hazardous material handling. Geographic impact is concentrated in Colorado and Wyoming, supporting federal infrastructure in these states.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
Sole-source award requires strong justification to ensure fair value.
Contract duration could lock in potentially inefficient practices if not managed closely.

Positive Signals

Fixed-firm-price contract type helps control cost overruns.
Award to a single, presumably qualified, vendor ensures service continuity.
Focus on environmental services is crucial for base safety and regulatory compliance.

Sector Analysis

The environmental services sector is a significant part of the federal contracting landscape, encompassing remediation, waste management, and compliance services. This contract falls within the broader category of professional, scientific, and technical services. The market for environmental services is competitive, with many firms offering specialized expertise. However, specific base-level environmental needs can sometimes lead to specialized requirements that may limit the pool of qualified contractors, potentially influencing competition levels. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to other environmental services contracts for federal facilities of similar size and scope.

Small Business Impact

The 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 arising from a small business set-aside. The award to a single entity, Sustainment & Restoration Services, LLC, means that opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and needs, which are not detailed in the provided data. Without a set-aside, the primary focus is on the capabilities of the awarded contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service, which awarded the contract. The contract type (firm fixed price) provides a degree of cost control. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms and performance requirements. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award; however, contract details are typically available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Base Operations Support Contracts
Federal Facility Environmental Compliance

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing validation.
Potential for cost inefficiencies without competitive pressure.
Need for robust government oversight to ensure performance and value.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3.4 million to SUSTAINMENT & RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC. FENCE TO FENCE (F2) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (ES) BUCKLEY SPACE FORCE BASE (SFB) AND FE WARREN AIR FORCE BASE (AFB)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SUSTAINMENT & RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-05-03. End: 2026-05-02.

What is the track record of Sustainment & Restoration Services, LLC in performing similar environmental services for federal agencies?

A thorough review of Sustainment & Restoration Services, LLC's past performance is crucial for assessing their capability to execute this contract successfully. This would involve examining their contract history with federal agencies, specifically looking for experience with environmental remediation, sustainment, and restoration services at military installations. Key indicators would include past performance evaluations, any documented instances of contract disputes or failures, and the scale and complexity of previously managed projects. Understanding their track record helps in evaluating the risk associated with this sole-source award and provides confidence in their ability to meet the requirements of Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB.

How does the pricing of this $3.41 million contract compare to similar environmental services contracts awarded competitively?

Benchmarking the pricing of this $3.41 million contract against similar environmental services contracts awarded competitively is challenging due to its sole-source nature. Ideally, a comparison would involve analyzing the per-unit costs or total contract values of contracts for similar services (e.g., remediation, sustainment) at comparable federal facilities (e.g., other Air Force bases) that were awarded through full and open competition. Factors such as geographic location, scope of work, duration, and specific environmental hazards would need to be considered for a fair comparison. Without such competitive data, it's difficult to ascertain if the government received optimal value for money, though the firm fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty.

What are the specific environmental risks and mitigation strategies associated with Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB that this contract addresses?

The specific environmental risks at Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB would likely stem from historical operations, including potential contamination from fuels, solvents, munitions, or other hazardous materials. This contract for 'Fence to Fence (F2) Environmental Services (ES)' suggests a comprehensive approach to managing these risks. Services could include site assessments, soil and groundwater remediation, hazardous waste management, asbestos abatement, and ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance with EPA and state environmental regulations. The mitigation strategies are embedded within the scope of work, aiming to prevent further environmental degradation, clean up existing contamination, and maintain a safe and compliant operational environment for both bases.

What is the historical spending pattern for environmental services at Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB over the last five years?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for environmental services at Buckley SFB and FE Warren AFB over the last five years would provide valuable context for this $3.41 million award. This data would reveal the average annual expenditure on such services, identify any trends (increasing or decreasing costs), and highlight the types of environmental services most frequently procured. Understanding this history can help determine if the current contract value is consistent with past investments, if there has been a significant shift in spending, or if this represents a new or expanded scope of services. Such analysis is crucial for budget planning and for assessing the long-term financial commitment to environmental management at these installations.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative solutions considered?

The justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis is critical for understanding why full and open competition was not pursued. Typical justifications include the unique capabilities of a single contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition would cause unacceptable delays, or specific national security requirements. For this contract, the General Services Administration (GSA) would have documentation outlining the specific reasons. Alternative solutions, such as breaking down the requirement into smaller, more competitive procurements or exploring other qualified vendors, should have been considered and documented as part of the justification process to ensure the government acted in its best interest.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Remediation and Other Waste Management Services › Remediation Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: 47QFWA23R0007

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1033 N MAYFAIR RD, MILWAUKEE, WI, 53226

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,354,907

Exercised Options: $4,031,399

Current Obligation: $3,411,052

Actual Outlays: $1,975,373

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline