EPA awards $10.7M environmental remediation contract to Bristol Environmental, highlighting long-term service needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,731,720 ($10.7M)

Contractor: Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2007-09-28

End Date: 2012-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,676 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LUST

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99502

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $10.7 million to BRISTOL ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SERVICES, LLC for work described as: LUST Key points: 1. Contract awarded for environmental consulting services, indicating a need for specialized expertise. 2. The contract duration of over 1600 days suggests a significant, ongoing environmental challenge. 3. Awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about competitive pricing and alternative solutions. 4. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control. 5. Geographic focus on Alaska suggests specific regional environmental concerns being addressed. 6. The absence of small business participation warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.7 million over approximately 4.5 years averages around $2.3 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale environmental remediation contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, while allowing flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. The lack of competitive bidding also limits direct price comparisons.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC, was considered. The justification for this approach is not provided in the data, but it typically implies a lack of sufficient competition or a unique capability possessed by the awarded contractor. This limits the opportunity for price discovery through a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also reduces transparency in the procurement process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring environmental cleanup and consulting services, particularly in Alaska. Services delivered include environmental consulting and remediation, addressing potential contamination and compliance issues. The geographic impact is focused on Alaska, suggesting specific environmental challenges in that region. Workforce implications may include specialized environmental scientists, engineers, and technicians employed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in suboptimal pricing for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Sole-source award limits transparency and potential for innovation from other vendors.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses critical environmental needs, ensuring regulatory compliance and public safety.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, long-term commitment to addressing environmental issues.
Award to a specialized firm indicates access to necessary expertise for complex tasks.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting and remediation is a specialized sector within professional services. The market is characterized by firms with specific technical expertise, often requiring certifications and a strong track record. Federal spending in this area is driven by regulatory requirements (like EPA mandates) and the need to manage legacy contamination or ongoing environmental impacts from federal operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the scale and complexity of the environmental issues being addressed.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award (ss: false, sb: false). There is no indication of small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting plans. This suggests that the primary contractor is either a large business or the nature of the services did not lend itself to subcontracting opportunities for small businesses under this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the awarding agency. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and performance monitoring are crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and the fixed fee is earned through satisfactory performance. Transparency may be limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, but contract performance reviews and financial audits would be standard accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Environmental Consulting
Federal Environmental Cleanup Contracts
EPA Contracts Alaska

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure requires diligent oversight.
Lack of small business participation noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $10.7 million to BRISTOL ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SERVICES, LLC. LUST

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BRISTOL ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-28. End: 2012-04-30.

What specific environmental issues or sites is Bristol Environmental Remediation Services addressing under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact environmental issues or sites covered by this contract. However, given the agency (EPA) and the service description (Environmental Consulting Services, Environmental Remediation), it likely involves addressing contamination, hazardous waste management, site assessment, or compliance monitoring at federal facilities or sites requiring EPA oversight, particularly within Alaska. Further details would typically be found in the contract's statement of work, which is not included in the provided data.

Can the pricing of this $10.7 million contract be benchmarked against similar sole-source environmental contracts?

Benchmarking this $10.7 million contract is difficult without more specific details on the scope of work, duration, and complexity of the environmental services provided. Sole-source contracts inherently lack direct price competition, making external comparisons less reliable. While the contract is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which allows for cost reimbursement plus a predetermined profit, the 'plus' component's reasonableness is key. A thorough benchmark would require access to similar sole-source awards for comparable environmental remediation projects, factoring in geographic location (Alaska often has higher costs), specific contaminants, and regulatory requirements.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract for environmental services?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for environmental services include potential cost overruns and a lack of competitive pressure to ensure optimal pricing. Since only one vendor is selected, there's no market-driven incentive for the contractor to be as cost-efficient as they might be in a competitive bidding scenario. For CPFF contracts, the government reimburses allowable costs plus a fixed fee (profit). Risks include the contractor not managing costs diligently, leading to higher overall expenditures, and the government potentially paying more than necessary. Robust oversight by the EPA is critical to mitigate these risks by scrutinizing costs and ensuring performance standards are met.

How does the long duration (1676 days) impact the assessment of this contract's value and risk?

The long duration of 1676 days (approximately 4.5 years) for this $10.7 million contract suggests a significant and potentially complex environmental challenge requiring sustained effort. From a value perspective, a longer duration can sometimes indicate a more stable and predictable cost structure, potentially allowing the contractor to achieve economies of scale or invest in specialized equipment. However, it also increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation, changes in regulatory requirements, or unforeseen site conditions over time. For the government, a long-term commitment requires consistent oversight and budget allocation. The risk is that the initial cost estimates may not hold true over the entire contract period, especially if the scope evolves or unforeseen issues arise.

What is the historical spending pattern for environmental consulting and remediation services by the EPA?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending patterns for the EPA in environmental consulting and remediation. However, federal agencies like the EPA consistently spend significant amounts on environmental services due to their regulatory mandates. Spending often fluctuates based on specific cleanup initiatives, Superfund site activities, and evolving environmental regulations. Analyzing historical spending would require accessing broader federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) to aggregate contract data for the EPA and similar agencies over multiple fiscal years, categorized by service type (consulting, remediation, etc.) and potentially by region.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Environmental Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: PRHQ0712522

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 111 W 16TH AVENUE 3RD FLOOR, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,735,277

Exercised Options: $15,916,004

Current Obligation: $10,731,720

Timeline