EPA's $15.8M contract for T&E facility support awarded to Shaw Environmental, Inc. under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,821,742 ($15.8M)

Contractor: Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2004-06-01

End Date: 2009-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,855 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: SUPPORT FOR T&E FACFILITY

Place of Performance

Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45246

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $15.8 million to SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. for work described as: SUPPORT FOR T&E FACFILITY Key points: 1. Contract value of $15.8M over 5 years suggests a significant investment in facility support. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' contract type may present cost control challenges if not closely managed. 4. The contract duration of 1855 days (approx. 5 years) allows for sustained support but requires long-term oversight. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541710 points to research and development activities. 6. The contract was awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a key environmental regulator. 7. The contract was awarded in Ohio, potentially indicating a specific geographic focus for the T&E facility.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $15.8 million over approximately five years for 'SUPPORT FOR T&E FACFILITY' is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for technical and environmental testing (T&E) facilities is difficult without more specific service details. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for R&D, can lead to higher costs if the fixed fee is not adequately justified by the scope of work and if cost overruns are not strictly controlled. The lack of detailed performance metrics makes a definitive value-for-money assessment challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With two bids received ('no': 2), the level of competition appears limited. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery, a low number of bidders could indicate market concentration, high barriers to entry, or insufficient outreach. This limited competition might have influenced the final negotiated price.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is positive for taxpayers, as it theoretically allows for the widest possible pool of bidders, potentially leading to more competitive pricing. However, with only two bids, the realized savings compared to a more robustly competed contract are uncertain.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the EPA's research and development initiatives, which rely on the T&E facility for critical testing and evaluation. The services delivered include essential support for the T&E facility, crucial for environmental research and regulatory compliance. The contract's geographic impact is centered in Ohio, where the T&E facility is presumably located. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for technical staff, researchers, and support personnel in Ohio.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher price than if more firms had competed.
The contract duration of 5 years requires sustained oversight to ensure continued value and performance.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's effectiveness objectively.

Positive Signals

Awarded under Full and Open Competition, which is the preferred method for maximizing market participation.
The contractor, Shaw Environmental, Inc., has experience in environmental services, aligning with the contract's nature.
The contract supports critical T&E facility operations for the EPA, contributing to environmental research and protection.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences sector (NAICS 541710). This sector is characterized by innovation and specialized technical expertise. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a significant player in funding R&D related to environmental science and technology. Comparable spending benchmarks for T&E facility support can vary widely based on the specific testing capabilities and scale of the facility.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('sb': false). There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem or whether opportunities were provided for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and auditing would be crucial to monitor costs and ensure the fixed fee remains justified. Transparency is dependent on the EPA's reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

EPA Research and Development Contracts
Environmental Testing and Evaluation Services
Federal R&D Facility Support
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Structure
Potential for Cost Overruns
Lack of Detailed Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $15.8 million to SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.. SUPPORT FOR T&E FACFILITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-06-01. End: 2009-06-30.

What is the track record of Shaw Environmental, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the EPA?

Shaw Environmental, Inc. has a history of federal contracting, including work with the EPA. Analyzing their past performance on similar environmental services or R&D support contracts would provide insight into their reliability and capability. Specific details on past contract values, performance ratings, and any disputes or terminations would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment. Without access to a detailed contract performance database, it's challenging to provide a definitive track record. However, their selection for this significant EPA contract suggests they met the agency's pre-qualification criteria at the time of award.

How does the $15.8 million contract value compare to similar EPA T&E facility support contracts?

Direct comparison of the $15.8 million contract value is difficult without knowing the precise scope of 'SUPPORT FOR T&E FACFILITY' and the specific capabilities of the T&E facility. Contracts for R&D support can vary immensely based on the complexity of research, the type of testing required (e.g., environmental, materials, engineering), and the duration of support. Generally, a $15.8 million award over five years represents a substantial commitment. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with similar NAICS codes (541710), similar agencies (EPA), and comparable service descriptions. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' structure also influences the total expenditure, which can fluctuate based on actual costs incurred.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for T&E facility support?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is the potential for cost overruns, where the contractor's actual costs exceed initial estimates, although the contractor's profit (the fixed fee) remains constant. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs to maximize their fee relative to actual expenses. However, if the initial cost estimates are inaccurate or the scope of work is not well-defined, the government may end up paying more than anticipated. For T&E facility support, risks include unforeseen technical challenges, equipment failures, or changes in research objectives that necessitate additional resources. Robust oversight and clear definition of the fixed fee's basis are critical to mitigate these risks.

How effective is the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' strategy when only two bids are received?

While 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' is the preferred method for maximizing potential bidders, its effectiveness is diminished when only two bids are received. This limited competition suggests potential issues such as high barriers to entry for smaller firms, a lack of market awareness, or a concentrated market where only a few firms possess the required capabilities. The effectiveness in terms of price discovery and achieving the best value for taxpayers is questionable. A more robust competition with multiple bidders typically leads to more aggressive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions. The EPA should analyze why only two bids were submitted to ensure future solicitations attract broader participation.

What are the historical spending patterns for EPA support for T&E facilities?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for EPA support of T&E facilities requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. This specific contract, awarded in 2004, represents a snapshot of spending during that period. To understand broader trends, one would need to examine EPA's budget allocations for R&D and facility support over multiple fiscal years. Key indicators would include the total amount spent on similar services, the number and value of contracts awarded, and the types of contract vehicles used. Trends might reveal increasing or decreasing investments in T&E capabilities, shifts in contracting strategies, or changes in the types of services procured.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › General Science and Technology R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation ID: PRCI0410068

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (UEI: 386491765)

Address: 11499 CHESTER ROAD, CINCINNATI, OH, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,832,996

Exercised Options: $16,679,508

Current Obligation: $15,821,742

Timeline