DoD's $11.3M Hazardous Waste Disposal Contract with TRS GROUP INC Shows Fair Value Amidst Limited Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,335,438 ($11.3M)

Contractor: TRS Group Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-09-28

End Date: 2006-03-06

Contract Duration: 1,255 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FORT LEWIS, PIERCE County, WASHINGTON, 98433

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.3 million to TRS GROUP INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $11.3M for hazardous waste treatment and disposal over 1255 days. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified vendors. 3. The contract was awarded to TRS GROUP INC, a single entity. 4. Fixed-price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 5. The contract falls under the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal NAICS code. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense. 7. The contract duration of approximately 3.5 years provides a stable service period.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $11.3 million for hazardous waste treatment and disposal over roughly 3.5 years appears reasonable. Without specific per-unit cost data or benchmarks for similar hazardous waste disposal services in the Washington region, a direct price assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government secured predictable costs, which is a positive indicator of value. The absence of extensive modifications or change orders, if applicable, would further support the notion of good initial pricing and scope management.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the Department of the Army actively sought proposals from all responsible sources. While the data indicates full and open competition, it does not specify the number of bids received. A high number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery, even if the specific number of competitors is not detailed.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation. This approach ensures that the government is not limited to a few providers, potentially leading to better deals and services.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from compliant and safe hazardous waste management, reducing environmental risks. Services delivered include the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste generated by Army operations. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational areas of the Department of the Army, likely in Washington state given the award location. Workforce implications include employment for personnel involved in hazardous waste handling, treatment, and disposal services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for price increases in future contracts if competition is not sustained.
Reliance on a single contractor for a critical service like hazardous waste disposal carries inherent risk.
Ensuring compliance with evolving environmental regulations for hazardous waste disposal can be complex.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust initial vetting process.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract duration of over three years offers stability in service provision.

Sector Analysis

The hazardous waste treatment and disposal sector is a critical component of environmental services, supporting various industries and government operations. This contract falls within the broader environmental services market, which is characterized by stringent regulatory compliance and specialized technical expertise. Benchmarking this specific contract's value is difficult without granular data on waste volumes and types, but the overall market for hazardous waste management is substantial, driven by industrial activity and government mandates for safe disposal.

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 or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, TRS GROUP INC, is likely a larger entity capable of handling the scope of hazardous waste treatment and disposal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the administrative contracting officer within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver services as specified. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Waste Management Services
Defense Logistics Agency Contracts
Department of Defense Environmental Contracts

Risk Flags

Contract awarded over 14 years ago.
Limited information on the number of bidders.
Specific details on waste volume and type not provided.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.3 million to TRS GROUP INC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRS GROUP INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-09-28. End: 2006-03-06.

What is the track record of TRS GROUP INC in performing hazardous waste disposal contracts for the federal government?

Assessing the track record of TRS GROUP INC requires a deeper dive into their contract history beyond this single award. While this $11.3 million contract with the Department of the Army for hazardous waste treatment and disposal (2002-2006) indicates they were a capable provider at that time, it doesn't provide a comprehensive view. Further analysis would involve examining other federal contracts awarded to TRS GROUP INC, looking at performance reviews (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any past performance issues, and their experience with similar types and volumes of hazardous waste. A consistent record of successful, timely, and compliant service delivery across multiple contracts would suggest a strong track record, whereas a history of disputes, penalties, or poor performance would raise concerns.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar hazardous waste disposal contracts awarded by the DoD around the same period?

Comparing the $11.3 million value of this contract to similar DoD hazardous waste disposal contracts awarded between 2002 and 2006 requires access to a broader dataset of federal procurements. Factors such as the specific types and quantities of hazardous waste, the geographic location of disposal sites, and the duration of service significantly influence contract value. Without these granular details and a benchmark of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if $11.3 million was high, low, or average. However, given it was awarded under full and open competition, it suggests the price was deemed fair and reasonable by the contracting officers based on the proposals received at the time.

What were the primary risks associated with this hazardous waste disposal contract, and how were they mitigated?

Key risks associated with this hazardous waste disposal contract likely included environmental compliance (ensuring adherence to EPA and state regulations), health and safety of personnel handling hazardous materials, potential for spills or accidents during transport and disposal, and contractor performance failures (e.g., inability to meet disposal deadlines or specifications). Mitigation strategies would have included rigorous pre-award contractor vetting, clear contract performance standards and specifications, requirements for specific permits and licenses, robust oversight by the contracting officer's representative, and potentially performance bonds. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract also shifts some financial risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage operational risks effectively to maintain profitability.

How effective was the 'full and open competition' strategy in ensuring the best value for this specific hazardous waste disposal requirement?

The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring best value, as it allows the government to solicit offers from the widest possible pool of responsible sources. For this hazardous waste disposal contract, this approach likely led to a competitive environment where multiple companies could propose solutions and pricing. The effectiveness in achieving 'best value' would depend on the number of bids received, the quality of the proposals submitted, and the evaluation criteria used by the Department of the Army. If numerous qualified bidders participated and the selection process rigorously weighed technical merit alongside price, then full and open competition likely yielded a favorable outcome for the government and taxpayers.

What is the historical spending trend for hazardous waste treatment and disposal services by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for hazardous waste treatment and disposal by the Department of the Army requires examining procurement data over multiple fiscal years. This single contract award of $11.3 million from 2002-2006 represents a specific instance. To understand the trend, one would need to aggregate spending on similar contracts (identified by NAICS code 562211 or related service descriptions) across various Army commands and installations over time. Factors influencing trends include changes in military operations, regulatory requirements, base closures/expansions, and shifts in environmental policy. A consistent or increasing trend might indicate growing needs or stricter compliance, while a decreasing trend could suggest efficiency gains or reduced operational footprints.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Waste Treatment and Disposal › Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCT NONBUILDING FACILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 2325 HUDSON STREET, LONGVIEW, WA, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline