FEMA's $198.8M emergency response contract awarded to engineering services firm

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $198,759,513 ($198.8M)

Contractor: Emergency Response Program Management Consultants

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-07-06

End Date: 2012-12-15

Contract Duration: 2,354 days

Daily Burn Rate: $84.4K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $198.8 million to EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS for work described as: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Key points: 1. Contract focused on technical assistance for emergency response program management. 2. Awarded under a competitive delivery order, indicating some level of market vetting. 3. Duration of over 6 years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The contract utilized a Time and Materials pricing structure, which can pose cost control challenges. 5. Services were delivered to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a key component of DHS. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, suggesting larger prime contractors were involved.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contracts for emergency response program management consultants. The Time and Materials pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored. The total value of nearly $200 million over six years indicates a significant investment, and its effectiveness would depend heavily on the quality of the technical assistance provided and its impact on FEMA's emergency response capabilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, suggesting it was competed among multiple vendors. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the competitive nature implies that FEMA sought to obtain services from the most capable and cost-effective provider. The competitive process is intended to foster price discovery and ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging innovation among contractors, leading to better value for money.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and, by extension, citizens affected by emergencies requiring federal response. The services delivered likely enhanced FEMA's capacity to manage and coordinate emergency response programs. Geographic impact is nationwide, as FEMA's mandate covers all states and territories. Workforce implications could include support for FEMA personnel and potentially the engagement of specialized consultants.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials pricing can lead to unpredictable costs if not managed diligently.
The long duration of the contract may require ongoing scrutiny to ensure continued relevance and value.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true impact of the technical assistance.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a competitive process, suggesting a degree of market validation.
The substantial value indicates a critical need for these specialized services within FEMA.
The contract duration points to a sustained commitment to improving emergency response capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting government program management and technical assistance. The market for such services is broad, encompassing firms with expertise in logistics, planning, and crisis management. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale technical assistance contracts awarded to government agencies for critical operational support, particularly within the public safety and emergency management domains.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a large business or that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were not a specific requirement of this particular delivery order. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mechanisms likely include contract performance reviews, financial audits, and potentially oversight from the DHS Office of Inspector General. Transparency would depend on the agency's reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security Contracts
Federal Emergency Management Agency Support Services
Emergency Management and Response Programs
Technical Assistance Contracts
Engineering Services for Government

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Need for robust oversight to ensure continued relevance and value over the contract's long duration.
Difficulty in quantifying the direct impact of technical assistance without specific performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $198.8 million to EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS.

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 $198.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-06. End: 2012-12-15.

What was the contractor's track record with FEMA or similar agencies prior to this award?

Information regarding the specific contractor's track record prior to this award is not available in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require identifying the prime contractor and researching their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those related to emergency management and technical assistance. Past performance evaluations, contract awards databases, and agency-specific procurement histories would be crucial for assessing their reliability and expertise. Without this information, it's difficult to gauge their suitability beyond the initial competitive selection.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to similar technical assistance contracts for emergency response?

The provided data does not include specific per-unit cost breakdowns or detailed service metrics, making a direct comparison to similar contracts difficult. The contract utilized a Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, which means costs are based on labor hours and material expenses rather than a fixed price. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable T&M contracts for emergency response technical assistance, analyze their average hourly rates for similar labor categories, and compare material markups. The total value of $198.8 million over approximately 6.5 years suggests an average annual spend of around $30 million, but this figure encompasses all aspects of the service.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract. Typically, for technical assistance contracts in emergency response, KPIs might include response times, effectiveness of recommendations, successful implementation of program improvements, client satisfaction (FEMA), and adherence to budget and schedule. Without access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or performance reports, assessing the contractor's performance against defined objectives is not possible.

What is the historical spending pattern for emergency response program management consultants by FEMA?

The provided data only details one specific contract. To understand historical spending patterns, a broader analysis of FEMA's procurement history for similar services over multiple fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for contracts categorized under emergency management, program management consulting, and technical assistance. Analyzing trends in contract values, number of awards, and types of services procured would reveal spending patterns and identify periods of increased or decreased investment in such support.

Were there any significant risks identified during the solicitation or award process for this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly detail risks identified during the solicitation or award process. However, general risks associated with large, long-term technical assistance contracts, especially those using Time and Materials pricing, include potential cost overruns, scope creep, contractor performance issues, and the risk of the services becoming outdated or less relevant over time. The competitive nature of the award suggests that bidders were evaluated on factors including technical approach, past performance, and price, which are standard methods for mitigating risks.

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: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM (UEI: 153561212)

Address: 3101 WILSON BOULEVARD, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $295,222,384

Exercised Options: $295,222,384

Current Obligation: $198,759,513

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSFEHQ06D0488

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline