EPA's $16.3M facilities maintenance contract with Dozier Technologies shows long duration and full competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,364,031 ($16.4M)

Contractor: Dozier Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2008-03-01

End Date: 2014-07-09

Contract Duration: 2,321 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF US EPA CINCINNATI FACILITIES

Place of Performance

Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45268

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $16.4 million to DOZIER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF US EPA CINCINNATI FACILITIES Key points: 1. The contract's extended duration suggests a need for stable, long-term facility management services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract type, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, can incentivize cost control while ensuring contractor profit. 4. Performance was managed by the EPA itself, suggesting direct agency oversight. 5. The services provided fall under Facilities Support Services, a common requirement for government agencies. 6. The contract was awarded in 2008 and completed in 2014, reflecting a significant period of service delivery.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar EPA facilities maintenance contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure means that while the fee is fixed, the total cost can fluctuate based on actual expenses. Without knowing the final cost relative to initial estimates or comparable market rates for facilities support services in Ohio, a definitive value assessment is difficult. The duration of the contract (over 6 years) suggests a substantial investment, but the overall value proposition hinges on the efficiency and effectiveness of the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which implies that while the competition was intended to be open, specific sources may have been excluded at some point in the process. The presence of 2 bids suggests a moderate level of competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The specific reasons for excluding other potential sources would be critical to understanding the full competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to vie for the contract, potentially driving down costs. However, the exclusion of certain sources warrants scrutiny to ensure no taxpayer funds were unnecessarily spent.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees and operations at the Cincinnati facilities, who receive essential support services. The contract ensured the continuous operation and maintenance of critical EPA infrastructure in Cincinnati, Ohio. Geographic impact is localized to Cincinnati, Ohio, where the EPA facilities are located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals involved in facilities maintenance and support services, likely through Dozier Technologies and any subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' designation raises questions about the extent of true open competition and potential limitations on market access.
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if not carefully managed, as the contractor is reimbursed for expenses.
The long duration of the contract (over 6 years) could indicate a lack of flexibility or potential for vendor lock-in if not managed proactively.
Limited information on performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the quality and efficiency of the services provided.
The absence of small business subcontracting goals (ss: false, sb: false) suggests missed opportunities to engage small businesses in supporting this contract.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition, despite potential exclusions, aims to ensure a broad search for qualified contractors.
The fixed fee component of the contract provides some cost certainty for the government regarding contractor profit.
The contract was successfully completed, indicating that the required facilities support services were delivered over its term.
The EPA managed the contract directly (aw: DCA), suggesting direct agency oversight and control over the service delivery.
The services provided are essential for the functioning of EPA facilities, ensuring operational continuity.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services, categorized under NAICS code 561210, represent a significant segment of the government contracting market. This sector encompasses a wide range of services including building operation and maintenance, cleaning, and groundskeeping. Federal spending in this area is substantial, as most government agencies operate numerous facilities requiring ongoing upkeep. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per square foot for maintenance and operations across similar federal buildings or comparing contract values for facilities management services awarded by agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) or the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have included specific small business set-aside provisions, nor are there explicit indications of small business subcontracting requirements (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, may have been limited. The absence of such provisions means that the potential economic benefits to the small business ecosystem from this particular contract were likely not maximized.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract was managed directly by the EPA (aw: DCA). Accountability measures would typically be embedded in the contract's performance work statement, requiring adherence to service level agreements and quality standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

EPA Facilities Operations and Maintenance
Federal Building Management Contracts
Government Facilities Support Services
Environmental Agency Infrastructure Support

Risk Flags

Potential lack of full transparency in competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost efficiency.
Absence of explicit small business subcontracting goals may limit economic opportunities.
Limited public data on performance metrics hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $16.4 million to DOZIER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF US EPA CINCINNATI FACILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOZIER TECHNOLOGIES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-01. End: 2014-07-09.

What was the specific nature of the 'exclusion of sources' in the full and open competition?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that while the procurement process aimed for broad competition, certain potential sources were deliberately excluded. The reasons for such exclusions can vary widely, including prior performance issues, failure to meet specific pre-qualification criteria, or strategic decisions to limit the pool for specific reasons. Without access to the solicitation documents and award decision rationale, it is impossible to determine the exact nature or justification for the exclusion of sources in this particular EPA contract. This lack of transparency can obscure whether the exclusion was warranted and if it potentially limited competitive pricing for taxpayers.

How did the final cost compare to the initial estimated cost for this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract?

Assessing the final cost against the initial estimate for this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is crucial for understanding its value. CPFF contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. While the fee is fixed, the total cost can fluctuate based on actual expenses incurred. To evaluate value, one would need to compare the total amount paid ($16.3 million) against the government's initial cost estimate and the contractor's proposed costs. If the final cost significantly exceeded estimates without a clear justification (e.g., scope changes), it could indicate potential inefficiencies or challenges in cost control. Conversely, staying within or below estimates, even with a fixed fee, suggests effective management.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) and how did Dozier Technologies perform against them?

Information regarding the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Dozier Technologies' performance against them is not publicly available in the provided data. For a contract focused on 'OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF US EPA CINCINNATI FACILITIES,' typical KPIs might include response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, energy efficiency targets, building system uptime, and customer satisfaction scores from EPA staff. Without these metrics, it's difficult to objectively assess the quality, efficiency, and overall effectiveness of the services provided by Dozier Technologies throughout the contract's duration. A thorough review would require access to performance reports and quality assurance assessments.

Were there any significant contract modifications or change orders issued during the contract's lifecycle?

The provided data does not detail any specific contract modifications or change orders for this EPA facilities maintenance contract. However, given its substantial duration of over six years (from March 1, 2008, to July 9, 2014), it is highly probable that some modifications occurred. These could range from minor adjustments in service scope or pricing to significant changes in requirements. Analyzing contract modifications is important for understanding how the contract evolved, whether the scope of work changed substantially, and if these changes impacted the overall cost and timeline. Significant modifications could also indicate evolving needs or unforeseen challenges during the contract period.

How does the contract value and duration compare to other similar federal facilities maintenance contracts?

The contract value of approximately $16.3 million over a period of roughly 6.4 years (2321 days) places it as a moderately sized, long-term facilities maintenance contract. To benchmark effectively, one would compare this to contracts for similar services awarded by agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) or other large federal entities. Factors like geographic location (Ohio), facility size and type, and the specific services included (operations, maintenance, cleaning, etc.) are critical for a fair comparison. Contracts with similar scope and duration might range from $10 million to $30 million, depending on these variables. The extended duration suggests a stable, ongoing need, which is common in facilities management.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: PRCI0710484

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4425 NICOLE DR STE A, LANHAM, MD, 04

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,191,605

Exercised Options: $17,494,343

Current Obligation: $16,364,031

Timeline