FEMA exercises $21.9M option for engineering services, continuing a 642-day contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,916,037 ($21.9M)

Contractor: Starr

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2012-12-01

End Date: 2014-09-04

Contract Duration: 642 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EXERCISE OPTION YEAR 5.

Place of Performance

Location: BELTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20705

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $21.9 million to STARR for work described as: EXERCISE OPTION YEAR 5. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in engineering support for disaster response. 2. The contract has been active for over 1.5 years, indicating ongoing need. 3. Engineering services are critical for assessing damage and planning recovery efforts. 4. The use of Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes performance. 5. This award is part of a larger framework for emergency management support. 6. The contractor has a history of supporting federal agencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $21.9 million for engineering services over its duration appears reasonable given the critical nature of FEMA's mission. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts for disaster response would provide further context. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure suggests that performance incentives are in place, which can drive value for money if managed effectively. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the continued exercise of options indicates satisfaction with the services provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to compete. The presence of four bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment at the time of award. Full and open competition is generally expected to yield competitive pricing and a wider range of technical solutions. The specific details of the bidding process and the number of proposals received would offer deeper insights into the intensity of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and higher quality services due to market forces driving efficiency and innovation.

Public Impact

Provides essential engineering expertise to support FEMA's disaster response and recovery operations. Benefits communities affected by natural disasters through improved damage assessment and planning. Supports the federal government's capacity to manage large-scale emergencies. Contributes to the resilience and rebuilding efforts in disaster-stricken areas. Likely involves a workforce of engineers and technical specialists.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if not rigorously managed.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical engineering services over an extended period.
Ensuring consistent quality and responsiveness across all task orders.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
Exercise of option year indicates satisfactory performance and continued need.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure can incentivize high performance.
Contract duration suggests a stable, long-term relationship for critical services.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services are a vital component of the federal contracting landscape, particularly for agencies like FEMA that require specialized expertise during emergencies. The market for these services is broad, encompassing firms of various sizes capable of providing technical assessments, design, and project management. This contract fits within the broader category of professional services supporting national security and emergency preparedness. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by federal agencies for disaster management or infrastructure projects.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. Full and open competition typically allows for participation by all responsible sources, including small businesses, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement and its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance monitoring and evaluation to determine award fees. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of contract actions and performance metrics. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Disaster Relief Fund
Emergency Management and Response Support
Engineering and Technical Services
Federal Procurement Data System

Risk Flags

Cost Overruns
Performance Variability
Contract Management Intensity

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $21.9 million to STARR. EXERCISE OPTION YEAR 5.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STARR.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-12-01. End: 2014-09-04.

What is the contractor's track record with FEMA and other federal agencies, particularly regarding performance on similar engineering services contracts?

The contractor, STARR, has a history of supporting federal agencies, including FEMA. While specific details on past performance metrics for this particular contract are not provided in the summary data, the exercise of an option year suggests that FEMA has been satisfied with STARR's performance to date. A comprehensive review would involve examining past performance evaluations, any documented issues or commendations, and the contractor's history on other relevant contracts, especially those involving emergency response or large-scale engineering projects. Understanding their performance on similar contracts would provide context for their ability to meet FEMA's ongoing needs.

How does the total contract value of $21.9 million compare to the typical cost of similar engineering services provided to federal agencies for disaster management?

Benchmarking the $21.9 million contract value requires comparing it to similar large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by federal agencies, particularly those focused on disaster management and response. Factors such as the duration of the contract (642 days), the scope of services (engineering services), and the agency (FEMA) are crucial for a meaningful comparison. Without access to a database of comparable contracts with detailed cost breakdowns and service scopes, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, for significant, multi-year engineering support during critical periods, this value appears within a plausible range, assuming the scope of work is substantial and complex.

What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure for FEMA?

The primary risks associated with a CPAF contract structure for FEMA revolve around cost control and ensuring true value for money. CPAF contracts include a base fee plus an award fee that is earned based on performance against pre-defined criteria. The risk is that if the award criteria are not sufficiently stringent or if oversight is lax, the contractor may achieve high award fees without necessarily delivering exceptional value or efficiency, potentially leading to higher overall costs than anticipated. FEMA must diligently monitor performance metrics and the justification for award fees to mitigate the risk of overpayment and ensure the contractor is incentivized to perform optimally.

How effective has this contract been in supporting FEMA's mission objectives related to disaster preparedness and response?

The effectiveness of this contract in supporting FEMA's mission is suggested by the exercise of the option year, indicating continued need and likely satisfactory performance. Engineering services are fundamental to assessing damage, planning recovery, and ensuring the structural integrity of infrastructure post-disaster. The contract's duration and value point to a significant role in FEMA's operational framework. However, a definitive assessment of effectiveness would require examining specific deliverables, project outcomes, and how the engineering support directly contributed to successful disaster response and recovery efforts, as well as FEMA's overall mission accomplishment.

What are the historical spending patterns for engineering services by FEMA, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Historical spending patterns for engineering services by FEMA are likely characterized by significant fluctuations tied to the frequency and severity of natural disasters. During periods of high disaster activity, spending on engineering and technical support services would naturally increase. This $21.9 million contract, awarded under full and open competition and exercised through an option year, suggests a consistent and substantial need for such services over its duration. It fits within a trend of federal agencies procuring specialized expertise to manage complex emergency response and recovery operations, reflecting a strategic allocation of resources to bolster disaster resilience and management capabilities.

What is the potential impact of this contract on the engineering services market, particularly for small businesses?

The impact of this contract on the engineering services market depends on its specific scope and the extent to which subcontracting opportunities are utilized. As a large contract awarded under full and open competition, it likely involves a prime contractor with significant resources and capabilities. While the primary awardee is STARR, there may be opportunities for smaller engineering firms to participate as subcontractors, depending on the specialized skills required. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem would be more evident if specific small business subcontracting goals were mandated or if the contract was structured to encourage broader participation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12101 INDIAN CREEK CT, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,544,313

Exercised Options: $21,950,575

Current Obligation: $21,916,037

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSFEHQ09D0370

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline