GSA's $13M environmental consulting contract with NORESCO, LLC awarded in 2001, ran for over 15 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,954,425 ($13.0M)

Contractor: Noresco, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2001-06-15

End Date: 2016-05-31

Contract Duration: 5,464 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30301, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $13.0 million to NORESCO, LLC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded without competition, raising questions about potential overpayment and lack of market price discovery. 2. Long contract duration (over 15 years) may indicate a stable, long-term need but also potential for vendor lock-in. 3. Fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty to the government but shifts risk to the contractor. 4. Awarded under GSA's Public Buildings Service, suggesting a focus on environmental compliance and management for federal facilities. 5. The absence of small business participation raises concerns about equitable distribution of federal contracting opportunities. 6. Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of services rendered.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Given the contract was awarded on a sole-source basis and specific performance metrics are not readily available, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The fixed-price nature provides some cost predictability, but without competitive benchmarks or detailed outcome data, it's difficult to ascertain if the government secured services at a fair market rate. Comparing this to similar environmental consulting contracts, especially those competed openly, would be necessary to gauge pricing efficiency. The extended duration without re-competition might suggest a sustained need, but also a missed opportunity for potentially better pricing through renewed competition.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the service, or in specific emergency situations. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to drive down prices and ensure the best possible value. It also raises questions about the thoroughness of the justification for not seeking competitive proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding processes.

Public Impact

Federal agencies, particularly those managed by the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service, likely benefited from environmental consulting services to ensure compliance and manage facility impacts. Services delivered would have focused on environmental assessments, compliance monitoring, remediation planning, or other related environmental management tasks. The geographic impact is likely tied to the locations of federal facilities managed by the GSA, potentially across the nation. Workforce implications are minimal for the public sector, with the primary impact being on the contractor's personnel and potentially specialized environmental consultants.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers.
Extended contract duration without re-competition may indicate a lack of proactive contract management or missed opportunities for better value.
Absence of readily available performance data hinders objective assessment of service effectiveness and contractor performance.
Sole-source award raises concerns about the justification and potential for vendor lock-in.
No indication of small business participation suggests a missed opportunity to support small business economic development.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty to the government, mitigating budget uncertainty.
Long-term engagement suggests a consistent need for specialized environmental services, potentially indicating successful service delivery over time.
Awarded by GSA, a major federal procurement agency, implying adherence to established procurement processes, even if sole-source.
The contract spanned a significant period, potentially allowing for deep expertise development by the contractor in specific environmental areas relevant to federal facilities.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting services fall under the professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by specialized expertise and often involves long-term engagements. The market size for environmental consulting is substantial, driven by regulatory compliance, sustainability initiatives, and infrastructure development. This contract with GSA represents a portion of federal spending within this sector, likely focused on supporting the operational and compliance needs of federal buildings and properties. Benchmarks for similar services would typically consider factors like the scope of work, geographic area, and specific environmental challenges addressed.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have included a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of significant subcontracting to small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, potentially missing opportunities to foster small business growth within the environmental consulting space. Federal contracting goals aim to ensure a portion of work is directed towards small businesses, and the absence of such provisions here warrants attention regarding equitable distribution of federal dollars and support for the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service. Accountability measures would typically involve contract performance reviews, adherence to the fixed-price terms, and compliance with environmental regulations. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of publicly detailed performance metrics. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Architectural and Engineering Services
Environmental Compliance Audits
Facility Management Services
Professional and Technical Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
Lack of performance metrics and outcome data
Extended contract duration without re-competition
No apparent small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $13.0 million to NORESCO, LLC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORESCO, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-06-15. End: 2016-05-31.

What specific environmental services did NORESCO, LLC provide under this contract?

While the contract number and award details are available, specific line-item services provided by NORESCO, LLC under this $12.95 million contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, given the NAICS code 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services) and the awarding agency's Public Buildings Service, the services likely encompassed a range of environmental assessments, compliance monitoring, regulatory support, potentially hazardous materials management, site investigations, and remediation planning for federal facilities managed by GSA. These services are crucial for ensuring federal properties meet environmental standards and regulations.

How does the $13 million contract value compare to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by GSA or other federal agencies?

Directly comparing the $12.95 million total value of this contract, awarded in 2001 and ending in 2016, to current market rates or even contemporary contracts is challenging without more specific details on the scope of services and duration of comparison contracts. However, $13 million over a 15-year period averages less than $1 million per year, which for a sole-source, long-term engagement, might be considered moderate. To provide a robust comparison, one would need to analyze similar environmental consulting contracts awarded around the same period by GSA or other agencies like the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers, focusing on contracts with comparable service scopes, contract types (fixed-price), and durations to assess if the pricing was competitive or indicative of a sole-source premium.

What were the justifications for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were they adequately documented?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is synonymous with a sole-source award. The specific justifications for this determination are not included in the abbreviated data. Typically, sole-source awards require a formal justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A) that must demonstrate why full and open competition is not feasible. Reasons can include unique capabilities of a single source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific follow-on work where only one contractor can perform. Without access to the J&A, it's impossible to assess the adequacy of the documentation or the validity of the sole-source determination.

What performance metrics or outcomes were tracked to evaluate the effectiveness of NORESCO, LLC's environmental consulting services?

The provided data does not include any information regarding performance metrics, key performance indicators (KPIs), or specific outcomes tracked for this contract. For a contract of this duration and value, it would be standard practice to have defined performance standards related to compliance, reporting accuracy, timeliness of deliverables, and potentially cost-effectiveness of recommendations. The absence of this information in the summary data makes it difficult to objectively assess the contractor's performance and the overall effectiveness and value derived from the services rendered to the GSA.

How has GSA's spending on environmental consulting services evolved since this contract was awarded in 2001?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific contract awarded to NORESCO, LLC. It does not offer insights into GSA's overall spending trends on environmental consulting services since 2001. To analyze this evolution, one would need access to historical GSA procurement data, filtering for contracts under the relevant NAICS codes (like 541620) or service descriptions. Such an analysis would reveal whether GSA's reliance on sole-source awards has changed, if spending has increased or decreased, and how competition dynamics have shifted in this service category over the past two decades.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCES - OTHER SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: 1 RESEARCH DR STE 400 C, WESTBOROUGH, MA, 01581

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,954,425

Exercised Options: $12,954,425

Current Obligation: $12,954,425

Timeline