EPA awards $23.2M contract to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION for services, spanning over 1800 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,229,837 ($23.2M)

Contractor: Serco-Ips Corporation

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2000-06-15

End Date: 2005-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,841 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: DURHAM, DURHAM County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27711

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $23.2 million to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $23.2 million over its duration suggests a significant investment in the services provided. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control and value. 4. The contract duration of approximately 5 years allows for sustained service delivery but also necessitates long-term performance evaluation. 5. The absence of specific Product Service Code (PSC) data limits detailed analysis of the service category. 6. The contract was awarded to a single entity, SERCO-IPS CORPORATION, highlighting the contractor's role in this specific service area.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $23.2 million contract is challenging without specific details on the services rendered. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed diligently, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. Comparing this to similar EPA contracts for comparable services would be necessary to assess if the pricing is competitive. The long duration suggests a need for consistent service, but the overall value depends heavily on the quality and efficiency of the work performed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified, which is crucial for a thorough assessment of the competition's intensity. A robust competition typically leads to better pricing and service options for the government. Without knowing the number of bids received, it's difficult to definitively state how effectively price discovery was achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality, ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential services to support its mission. The contract likely supports critical environmental programs and regulatory functions managed by the EPA. Services delivered under this contract could have broad geographic implications, potentially impacting environmental quality across the nation. The contract may have implications for the workforce, either through direct employment by the contractor or indirectly through support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The CPFF contract type necessitates vigilant oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate for the work performed.
Lack of specific service details makes it difficult to assess performance metrics and potential risks associated with service delivery.
The long contract duration could pose a risk if the contractor's performance degrades over time without adequate corrective actions.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive process that could yield good value.
The contract is with SERCO-IPS CORPORATION, a known entity, suggesting a degree of established capability.
The contract duration of over 1800 days implies a stable, long-term need for the services, potentially indicating a well-defined requirement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad professional services sector, likely supporting government administration and operations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) procures a wide range of services to fulfill its mandate, including scientific research, regulatory support, and program management. Benchmarking this $23.2 million award requires comparison with other EPA contracts for similar administrative or operational support services. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms capable of providing specialized support to federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate whether this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. Without this information, it's impossible to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem. Typically, larger contracts are reviewed for opportunities to include small businesses, either as prime contractors or through subcontracting. The absence of specific flags suggests this may not have been a primary focus or that the contract was not structured to prioritize small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracting officers and program managers. The CPFF structure requires diligent monitoring of costs and performance to ensure adherence to the contract terms and the fixed fee. Transparency would depend on the EPA's policies regarding the disclosure of contract details and performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

EPA Administrative Support Contracts
Federal Professional Services Procurement
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Service Contracts
Environmental Program Support

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Lack of specific service details (blank PSC) hinders in-depth analysis.
Number of bidders not specified, limiting assessment of competition intensity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $23.2 million to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SERCO-IPS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-06-15. End: 2005-06-30.

What specific services were rendered under this $23.2 million EPA contract awarded to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under this contract. The 'PSC' (Product/Service Code) field is blank, which typically categorizes the type of goods or services procured. Given the awarding agency (Environmental Protection Agency) and the contractor (SERCO-IPS CORPORATION), the services could range widely, potentially including administrative support, technical consulting, program management, data analysis, or operational support for EPA initiatives. A more detailed analysis would require access to the contract's statement of work or related documentation to understand the scope and nature of the services provided and their alignment with the EPA's mission.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure of this contract potentially impact its overall cost-effectiveness for the EPA?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee. While this structure can be beneficial for complex projects where the scope is not fully defined at the outset, it carries inherent risks for cost-effectiveness. The government bears the risk of cost overruns, as all legitimate expenses are covered. The 'fixed fee' component provides the contractor with an incentive to control costs, as the fee does not increase with higher costs. However, effective oversight by the EPA is crucial to scrutinize allowable costs, prevent inefficiencies, and ensure the fixed fee remains a fair reflection of the contractor's effort and risk. Without robust monitoring, CPFF contracts can sometimes result in higher overall costs compared to fixed-price arrangements.

What is the significance of this contract being awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' for the EPA and taxpayers?

Awarding a contract under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' signifies that the EPA solicited proposals from all responsible sources, allowing for the widest possible range of potential contractors to bid. This approach is generally considered the most effective method for achieving competitive pricing and ensuring the government obtains the best value. For taxpayers, this means that the contract price is likely the result of a competitive process, which tends to drive down costs compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios. It also promotes fairness and transparency in government procurement. However, the true benefit depends on the number of bids received and the rigor of the evaluation process.

Given the contract duration of over 1800 days (approximately 5 years), what are the key performance monitoring considerations for the EPA?

A contract spanning approximately five years requires a robust performance monitoring framework. The EPA must establish clear, measurable performance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs) within the contract's statement of work. Regular performance reviews, at least quarterly, should be conducted to assess the contractor's adherence to these standards. For a CPFF contract, monitoring not only performance but also cost efficiency is paramount. The EPA should track expenditures against the budget, scrutinize the allowability of costs, and ensure the contractor is meeting milestones and delivering quality services. Mechanisms for addressing performance deficiencies, such as corrective action plans and potential award fee adjustments (if applicable), should be in place throughout the contract's life.

What does the absence of a specific Product/Service Code (PSC) suggest about this contract?

The absence of a specific Product/Service Code (PSC) in the provided data is unusual and limits the ability to categorize the nature of the services procured. PSCs are standardized codes used by the federal government to classify goods and services. A blank PSC might indicate an administrative oversight in data entry or that the contract falls under a very broad or unique service category not easily captured by standard codes. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to perform industry-specific benchmarking, identify comparable contracts, or understand the precise functional area the contractor is supporting within the EPA. It highlights a potential gap in data transparency and detailed contract analysis.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 1000 BURR RIDGE PKWY , STE 202, BURR RIDGE, IL, 60527

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,473,188

Exercised Options: $5,563,158

Current Obligation: $23,229,837

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline