EPA awards $6.7M follow-on contract for Superfund site remediation to AECOM Technical Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,669,077 ($6.7M)

Contractor: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2023-09-21

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,105 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: REMEDIATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (RES) - SONFORD PRODUCTS SUPERFUND SITES. LOGICAL FOLLOW-ON

Place of Performance

Location: PEARL, RANKIN County, MISSISSIPPI, 39208

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $6.7 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. for work described as: REMEDIATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (RES) - SONFORD PRODUCTS SUPERFUND SITES. LOGICAL FOLLOW-ON Key points: 1. Contract represents a logical follow-on, suggesting continuity and potential efficiency gains. 2. The award mechanism is a Delivery Order, indicating it's part of a larger existing contract. 3. The contract type is 'Full and Open Competition', implying a broad solicitation process. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 562910 points to Remediation Services. 5. The contract duration is over 3 years, indicating a significant, long-term commitment. 6. The awarding agency is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a key player in environmental cleanup.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $6.7 million for environmental remediation services over approximately three years appears reasonable, especially considering it's a follow-on award. Without specific benchmarks for similar Superfund site remediation projects of this scale and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the 'Cost No Fee' pricing structure suggests that the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs, with no additional profit margin, which can be cost-effective for the government if managed tightly. Further analysis would require comparing this contract's unit costs for specific remediation activities against industry standards or other EPA contracts for similar services.

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 does not specify the number of bidders, which is crucial for a complete assessment of the competition dynamics. A robust competition typically leads to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The fact that it is a follow-on award suggests that AECOM Technical Services, Inc. likely performed well on a previous contract, potentially influencing the competitive landscape for this subsequent award.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality. The absence of specific bidder numbers prevents a definitive statement on the degree of price discovery achieved.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are communities impacted by Superfund sites requiring environmental remediation. The contract delivers essential environmental cleanup and hazardous waste management services. The geographic impact is focused on Superfund sites within Mississippi, as indicated by the 'SN' field. The contract supports a workforce skilled in environmental engineering, remediation, and hazardous material handling.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific bidder numbers for the full and open competition limits assessment of price discovery.
The 'Cost No Fee' structure requires diligent oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allowable.
Follow-on nature of the award could potentially limit new market entrants if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

Awarded under 'Full and Open Competition', suggesting a broad search for qualified contractors.
Follow-on award implies contractor performance was satisfactory on a previous engagement.
Contracting for Superfund site remediation addresses critical environmental and public health needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Environmental Remediation Services sector, a critical component of the broader Environmental Services industry. This sector is characterized by specialized firms that manage and clean up contaminated sites, often under strict regulatory oversight from agencies like the EPA. The market size for environmental consulting and remediation services is substantial, driven by regulatory compliance, legacy contamination issues, and increasing environmental awareness. This specific contract for Superfund sites aligns with the EPA's ongoing mission to address the nation's most contaminated locations, fitting within a category of significant, long-term government spending on environmental cleanup.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct set-aside implications for small businesses. However, as a follow-on award to AECOM Technical Services, Inc., a large entity, the potential for small business subcontracting opportunities would depend on AECOM's own subcontracting plans and policies. Without explicit subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large prime contracts can sometimes create downstream opportunities for specialized small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is primarily the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the awarding agency. As a 'Cost No Fee' contract, rigorous financial oversight is essential to ensure that all reimbursed costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable according to federal cost principles. Transparency is facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is not detailed, the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) typically has oversight authority over EPA contracts to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Superfund Program
Environmental Services Contracts
Hazardous Waste Management
Remediation Services
Federal Environmental Cleanup Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth in 'Cost No Fee' contracts if not rigorously managed.
Follow-on award requires verification that competition was adequate and pricing remains fair.
Complexity of Superfund sites introduces risks of unforeseen conditions and technical challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $6.7 million to AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.. REMEDIATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (RES) - SONFORD PRODUCTS SUPERFUND SITES. LOGICAL FOLLOW-ON

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-21. End: 2026-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for AECOM Technical Services, Inc. with the EPA for environmental remediation services?

Analyzing AECOM Technical Services, Inc.'s historical spending with the EPA for environmental remediation services requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. While this specific contract is a $6.7 million follow-on award, AECOM is a large, established federal contractor with a significant presence across various agencies and service areas. To understand their historical pattern with the EPA, one would need to query databases like USAspending.gov or FPDS for all contracts awarded to AECOM (and its subsidiaries) under relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 562910) and PSC codes related to environmental services. This would reveal the total value, number, and types of contracts awarded over time, identifying trends in their engagement with the EPA for remediation projects. A high volume of similar contracts would indicate a strong, established relationship and expertise, while a sporadic pattern might suggest a more opportunistic engagement. Understanding the types of sites and services provided historically would also offer context for this current award.

How does the 'Cost No Fee' pricing structure compare to other environmental remediation contracts awarded by the EPA?

The 'Cost No Fee' (CNF) pricing structure, where the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs but receives no profit, is less common for large, complex service contracts compared to cost-plus-fee (CPF) or firm-fixed-price (FFP) arrangements. For environmental remediation, especially long-term Superfund projects, CNF might be used when the scope is highly uncertain or when the government wants to minimize contractor profit. However, it places a significant burden on the government to meticulously audit and approve all costs. Comparing this to other EPA contracts would likely show a prevalence of CPF contracts, which include a fee (profit) to incentivize performance and risk-taking, or FFP contracts for well-defined scopes. The choice of CNF here suggests a specific rationale, possibly related to the nature of the follow-on work or a strategic decision by the EPA to control costs tightly, though it necessitates robust government cost-monitoring capabilities to ensure value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate success in Superfund site remediation contracts?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for Superfund site remediation contracts typically focus on technical execution, environmental outcomes, safety, and schedule adherence. Common KPIs include: 1) Remediation Effectiveness: Measured by the reduction of contaminants in soil, water, or air to meet or exceed regulatory standards (e.g., cleanup goals defined in the Record of Decision). This can involve monitoring contaminant levels over time. 2) Schedule Compliance: Tracking progress against key milestones and the overall project completion date. Delays can increase costs and extend exposure risks. 3) Cost Control: While this is a CNF contract, monitoring actual costs against estimates and ensuring efficient resource utilization is crucial. 4) Health and Safety: Measured by incident rates (e.g., Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate - LTIFR) and compliance with environmental health and safety (EHS) protocols to protect workers and the public. 5) Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring all work adheres to EPA regulations, permits, and reporting requirements. 6) Waste Management: Proper characterization, handling, and disposal of generated hazardous waste according to regulations. These KPIs are often detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) and monitored through regular progress reports and site inspections.

What is the significance of this contract being a 'logical follow-on' to a previous award?

A 'logical follow-on' designation implies that this new contract is a direct continuation or extension of work previously performed under an existing contract, often with the same contractor. This designation can be used to streamline the procurement process, potentially bypassing a full and open competition if certain conditions are met (though this contract *was* competed full and open). The significance lies in the assumption that the previous work was satisfactory, and continuing with the same contractor offers benefits like reduced startup time, familiarity with the specific site conditions and challenges, and potentially more efficient execution due to established processes and knowledge. For taxpayers, it can mean faster cleanup and potentially lower overall costs due to continuity. However, it also necessitates careful justification to ensure that competition was not unduly restricted and that the pricing remains competitive, especially if the original competition was some time ago or if market conditions have changed significantly.

What are the potential risks associated with environmental remediation projects of this nature?

Environmental remediation projects, particularly those involving Superfund sites, carry inherent risks. Key risks include: 1) Unforeseen Site Conditions: Discovery of previously unknown contaminants, geological complexities, or buried hazards that require changes to the remediation plan and increase costs and timelines. 2) Regulatory Changes: Evolving environmental standards or new regulations could necessitate modifications to the cleanup approach. 3) Technical Challenges: The chosen remediation technologies may prove less effective than anticipated, requiring adaptive management or alternative solutions. 4) Public and Stakeholder Opposition: Community concerns or legal challenges can delay or alter project scope. 5) Contractor Performance Issues: Failure to meet technical specifications, safety standards, or schedule milestones. 6) Cost Overruns: Especially in 'Cost Plus' or 'Cost No Fee' contracts, inadequate cost controls or unforeseen issues can lead to budget increases. Given this is a follow-on award, some initial risks may have been mitigated by prior work, but the complexity of Superfund sites means residual risks remain significant.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS PROTECTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 S GRAND AVE STE 1100, LOS ANGELES, CA, 90071

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,925,171

Exercised Options: $6,968,609

Current Obligation: $6,669,077

Actual Outlays: $4,289,982

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 7

Total Subaward Amount: $3,483,244

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 68HERH19D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline