EPA awards $80,952 contract for enforcement support services to Harpy Technologies, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $260,551 ($260.6K)

Contractor: Harpy Technologies, LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2025-09-30

End Date: 2030-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $143/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES PRP SEARCH CONTRACT - $80,952 CONTRACT: HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CONTRACT: 68HE0325D0006, TASK ORDER: NEW THE PURPOSE OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE AG

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19103

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $260,550.7 to HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC for work described as: ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES PRP SEARCH CONTRACT - $80,952 CONTRACT: HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CONTRACT: 68HE0325D0006, TASK ORDER: NEW THE PURPOSE OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE AG Key points: 1. Contract awarded for specialized enforcement support, including PRP search services. 2. The contract duration is approximately 5 years, aligning with long-term agency needs. 3. Harpy Technologies, LLC is the sole awardee, indicating a non-competitive procurement. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 5. The stated purpose is to provide essential support for EPA enforcement actions. 6. Geographic focus appears to be Pennsylvania, based on the state code provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $80,952 is relatively small, making direct comparison to larger contracts difficult. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, especially for a task order of this size, raises concerns about potential inefficiencies and lack of strong price incentives for the contractor. Without more detailed cost breakdowns or benchmarks for similar enforcement support services, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money. The limited competition further complicates a thorough value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source procurement, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. The data indicates it was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION'. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the specific service. However, it limits the opportunity for price discovery and potentially higher quality solutions that might emerge from a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, sole-source awards mean there is no assurance that the government secured the best possible price or that alternative, potentially more cost-effective solutions were explored. This can lead to higher costs than might be achieved in a competitive environment.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benefits from specialized support for its enforcement activities. The services provided will aid in identifying Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for environmental liabilities. This contract supports the EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. The geographic impact is noted as Pennsylvania, suggesting enforcement actions within that state will be supported.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential for innovation.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type may incentivize higher costs if not closely monitored.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes assessing effectiveness difficult.
Small contract value may indicate a niche service, but its necessity and cost-effectiveness warrant scrutiny.

Positive Signals

Contract supports critical EPA enforcement functions, contributing to environmental protection.
Long contract duration (approx. 5 years) suggests a sustained need for these services.
Specific focus on PRP search is a key component of environmental liability resolution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Environmental Consulting Services sector, specifically supporting government enforcement and compliance activities. The market for environmental consulting is diverse, ranging from site remediation and compliance auditing to expert witness testimony and litigation support. Government agencies like the EPA are significant clients in this sector, often requiring specialized expertise for complex environmental investigations and legal proceedings. Benchmarks for similar niche enforcement support services are difficult to establish without more specific details on the scope of work.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information available regarding subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, as it does not appear to be a vehicle designed to promote small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. Given the sole-source nature and the CPFF structure, rigorous oversight of contractor performance, cost, and adherence to the statement of work is crucial to ensure value for money and mission accomplishment. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and detailed reporting on costs incurred would be key accountability measures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Enforcement
Superfund Program Support
Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Environmental Litigation Support
Potentially Responsible Party Identification

Risk Flags

Sole-source award requires strong justification.
CPFF contract type necessitates vigilant cost oversight.
Limited data on performance metrics.
Potential for contractor dependency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $260,550.7 to HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES PRP SEARCH CONTRACT - $80,952 CONTRACT: HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CONTRACT: 68HE0325D0006, TASK ORDER: NEW THE PURPOSE OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE AG

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARPY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $260,550.7.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-30. End: 2030-09-30.

What is the specific expertise Harpy Technologies, LLC possesses that justifies a sole-source award for enforcement support services?

The justification for a sole-source award typically rests on unique capabilities, specialized knowledge, or proprietary technology that only a specific contractor possesses. For Harpy Technologies, LLC, this could involve proprietary databases for identifying Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), specialized analytical tools for environmental forensics, or a proven track record with highly sensitive or complex enforcement cases that other firms cannot replicate. Without the formal justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval or J&A), it's impossible to definitively state their unique qualifications. However, the EPA likely determined that initiating a competitive process would be less efficient or ineffective due to these specific, non-replicable attributes of Harpy Technologies.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other potential contract types for this type of service, and what are the implications for cost control?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs incurred plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves a high degree of uncertainty, making fixed-price contracts impractical. For enforcement support services, where investigative paths can be unpredictable, CPFF might seem appropriate. However, it shifts much of the cost risk to the government and provides weaker incentives for the contractor to control costs compared to fixed-price or even cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts. Without robust oversight and detailed cost tracking, CPFF contracts can lead to cost overruns as the contractor is guaranteed their fee regardless of cost efficiency.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Enforcement Support Services' by the EPA, and how does this award fit within that trend?

Analyzing historical spending requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data beyond this single award. However, 'Enforcement Support Services' is a recurring need for agencies like the EPA, particularly within programs like Superfund or hazardous waste enforcement. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on the number and complexity of enforcement cases, regulatory changes, and budget allocations. A single award of $80,952 is relatively small in the context of overall EPA enforcement budgets, suggesting it might be for a specific task order, a pilot project, or a very narrowly defined support function. Larger contracts for broader enforcement support or litigation often run into millions of dollars. This award likely represents a minor component of the EPA's overall investment in enforcement.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for critical enforcement support functions?

Relying on a single contractor for critical functions like enforcement support introduces several risks. Firstly, it creates a dependency that can be problematic if the contractor fails to perform, experiences financial instability, or undergoes significant personnel changes. Secondly, the lack of competition can lead to complacency and potentially reduced service quality or innovation over time. Thirdly, from a government perspective, it limits flexibility; if the agency's needs evolve, switching contractors can be difficult and costly. Finally, for a sole-source award, there's an inherent risk that the government may not be receiving the most competitive pricing or the best available solution compared to what a competitive market might offer.

How will the performance of Harpy Technologies, LLC be measured under this contract, and what are the key performance indicators (KPIs)?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or the performance measurement structure for this contract. Typically, for enforcement support services, KPIs might include metrics related to the accuracy and timeliness of PRP identification, the quality of reports generated, adherence to legal and regulatory requirements, and responsiveness to EPA requests. The contract's performance clause (often referencing the Performance Work Statement or PWS) would detail these requirements. Given the CPFF structure, performance monitoring is critical to ensure the contractor is meeting objectives and to justify continued payment and fee.

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: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1203 ALGONQUIN RD, CROWNSVILLE, MD, 21032

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $260,551

Exercised Options: $260,551

Current Obligation: $260,551

Actual Outlays: $28,551

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 68HE0325D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline