DOE's $2.7M Energy Savings Performance Contract Facilitation Services awarded to EMP2, INC. for retrofits
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $2,720 ($2.7K)
Contractor: EMP2, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 2016-03-24
End Date: 2019-03-23
Contract Duration: 1,094 days
Daily Burn Rate: $2/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF PROJECT FACILITATION (PF) SERVICES FOR ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT PROJECT PF 486, UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL DEEP ENERGY RETROFIT 1 - CONTINUATION FROM PF 376 ___
Place of Performance
Location: RICHLAND, BENTON County, WASHINGTON, 99352
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $2,719.53 to EMP2, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF PROJECT FACILITATION (PF) SERVICES FOR ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT PROJECT PF 486, UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL DEEP ENERGY RETROFIT 1 - CONTINUATION FROM PF 376 ___ Key points: 1. Contract provides essential facilitation for energy efficiency projects, aiming for long-term cost savings. 2. The fixed-price structure shifts performance risk to the contractor. 3. Limited competition noted, potentially impacting price discovery. 4. Contract duration of nearly three years suggests a significant project scope. 5. Focus on energy retrofits aligns with federal sustainability goals. 6. The award is a continuation, indicating prior satisfactory performance.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $2.7 million for facilitation services over three years appears reasonable given the scope of supporting energy savings performance contracts. Benchmarking against similar facilitation contracts is challenging due to the specialized nature of ESPC support. However, the fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope and risk transfer to the contractor, which is generally a positive indicator for value. The continuation from a previous award also implies that the initial pricing was deemed acceptable.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This specific designation suggests that while the initial intent might have been full and open, certain sources were excluded, leading to a limited competition pool. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed but could stem from specific technical requirements or prior relationships. A limited competition typically results in fewer bids than a truly full and open process, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can mean taxpayers may not benefit from the most competitive pricing achievable through a broader bidding process. This could translate to higher overall costs for the government.
Public Impact
Federal agencies benefit from expert facilitation to implement energy efficiency measures, leading to reduced utility costs. Services delivered include project development, financing support, and performance verification for energy savings projects. Geographic impact is national, supporting retrofits across federal facilities. Workforce implications include specialized roles in energy management and project facilitation.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition may reduce price competitiveness.
- Contract duration could lead to cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed.
- Reliance on a single contractor for facilitation could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Continuation from a prior award suggests contractor reliability and performance.
- Fixed-price contract aligns incentives for cost-effective project delivery.
- Focus on energy savings directly supports federal sustainability mandates.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on energy consulting and project facilitation. The market for energy savings performance contract (ESPC) facilitation is specialized, involving firms with expertise in energy efficiency technologies, project finance, and government contracting. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the unique nature of ESPC facilitation, but overall federal spending on energy efficiency and sustainability initiatives is substantial, reflecting a growing market.
Small Business Impact
The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration ('sb': false). There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses within the provided details. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing specialized expertise for the facilitation services, rather than specifically leveraging the small business ecosystem for this particular award. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the full impact on small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Energy's program managers and contracting officers. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Energy would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations related to potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award details. However, detailed performance metrics and project outcomes are often internal to the agency unless publicly reported.
Related Government Programs
- Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)
- Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
- General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
- Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Risk Flags
- Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
- Scope management is crucial for fixed-price contracts.
- Contractor performance risk needs continuous monitoring.
Tags
energy-savings-performance-contract, facilitation-services, department-of-energy, firm-fixed-price, limited-competition, professional-scientific-technical-services, energy-efficiency, federal-facilities, washington-dc, delivery-order
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $2,719.53 to EMP2, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF PROJECT FACILITATION (PF) SERVICES FOR ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT PROJECT PF 486, UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL DEEP ENERGY RETROFIT 1 - CONTINUATION FROM PF 376 ___
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is EMP2, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $2,719.53.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2016-03-24. End: 2019-03-23.
What is the track record of EMP2, INC. in delivering similar energy facilitation services?
Information on EMP2, INC.'s specific track record for similar energy facilitation services is not detailed in the provided data. However, the fact that this contract is a continuation from a previous award (PF 376 to PF 486) suggests a degree of prior satisfactory performance recognized by the Department of Energy. To fully assess their track record, a review of past performance evaluations, other federal contracts held by EMP2, INC. in the energy sector, and client references would be necessary. This would provide insight into their ability to manage complex projects, meet deadlines, and achieve projected energy savings for federal facilities.
How does the pricing of this contract compare to market rates for similar facilitation services?
Directly comparing the pricing of this $2.7 million contract for facilitation services over three years to precise market rates is challenging due to the specialized nature of Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) facilitation. These services often require unique expertise in energy efficiency technologies, project finance, and government regulations. The contract is firm fixed-price, which generally indicates that the price was determined based on a defined scope of work and risk assessment. Benchmarking would ideally involve analyzing other ESPC facilitation contracts awarded by federal agencies, considering factors like contract duration, scope complexity, and the specific services provided. Without access to a broader dataset of comparable contracts, a definitive value-for-money assessment based solely on price is limited.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being managed?
The primary risks associated with this contract include potential scope creep, contractor underperformance, and the possibility that the anticipated energy savings may not be fully realized. Since it's a facilitation contract, the contractor's ability to effectively guide and manage the underlying ESPC projects is critical. The firm fixed-price nature helps mitigate financial risk for the government by capping costs. Management of performance risk relies on the Department of Energy's oversight, including monitoring milestones, deliverables, and the contractor's adherence to the contract terms. The continuation of the contract suggests that performance on the previous award was deemed acceptable, implying some level of risk mitigation has been successful.
How effective has the Department of Energy been in achieving its energy efficiency goals through contracts like this?
The effectiveness of the Department of Energy (DOE) in achieving energy efficiency goals through contracts like this is generally positive, as ESPCs are a key mechanism for federal agencies to reduce energy consumption and costs. These contracts enable agencies to implement energy conservation measures without upfront capital investment, with repayment coming from the energy savings achieved. The success of this specific contract, being a continuation, indicates that the facilitation services provided by EMP2, INC. have likely contributed to DOE's objectives. However, a comprehensive assessment of effectiveness would require analyzing the actual energy savings realized from the projects facilitated under this contract compared to the initial projections and the overall cost of the facilitation services.
What are the historical spending patterns for energy savings performance contract facilitation services at the Department of Energy?
Historical spending patterns for energy savings performance contract (ESPC) facilitation services at the Department of Energy (DOE) show a consistent investment in these types of support contracts. DOE, as a major energy consumer and promoter of energy efficiency, regularly utilizes ESPCs and requires facilitation services to manage these complex projects. While specific aggregate spending figures for facilitation services alone are not readily available without deep dives into budget documents and contract databases, the recurring nature of these awards, including continuations like the one for EMP2, INC., indicates a sustained commitment. Spending levels can fluctuate based on agency priorities, available funding for energy projects, and the pipeline of potential ESPC opportunities.
What is the significance of the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type?
The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type signifies a procurement process that began with the intention of allowing all responsible sources to compete, but subsequently, certain sources were excluded. This exclusion is typically based on specific, documented reasons such as unique capabilities, proprietary information, or prior work that makes other sources unsuitable. While it aims for broad competition initially, the exclusion narrows the field. This can impact the number of bids received and potentially the level of price competition compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition. The justification for excluding sources must be robust to ensure fairness and maximize value for the government.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: RFQ# 2016-486
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1950 KEENE RD BLDG E, RICHLAND, WA, 99352
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $2,720
Exercised Options: $2,720
Current Obligation: $2,720
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: DEEE0003382
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2016-03-24
Current End Date: 2019-03-23
Potential End Date: 2019-03-23 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-04-01
More Contracts from EMP2, Inc.
- THE Contractor Shall Provide Project Facilitator Services to Support Visn 10 Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Services Contracts Entered Into by the Department of Veterans Affairs — $71.9K (Department of Veterans Affairs)
- Visn 1 White River Junction Energy Savings Performance Contract (espc) Project Facilitator (PF) Services — $19.6K (Department of Veterans Affairs)
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)