EPA's $24.5M Facilities Support Contract Awarded to Ecology and Environment Inc. for California Operations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,466,665 ($24.5M)

Contractor: Ecology and Environment Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2000-12-15

End Date: 2006-03-14

Contract Duration: 1,915 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO County, CALIFORNIA, 94105

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $24.5 million to ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1915 days (over 5 years) indicates a long-term need for services. 3. The 'Facilities Support Services' category suggests a broad range of operational support. 4. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' pricing structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 5. The absence of small business set-aside indicates potential for larger prime contractors. 6. The contract was awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for services in California.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific service details and market rates for facilities support in California during the contract period (2000-2006). The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure, while common, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if the fixed fee is not adequately calibrated against the anticipated costs. Without comparable contract data for similar facilities support services from the same period, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the total award amount of approximately $24.5 million over nearly five years suggests a significant investment in maintaining EPA facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, allowing the agency to select the most advantageous offer based on price and other factors. The open competition suggests that the EPA sought to leverage market forces to secure the best possible terms for these essential facilities support services.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to drive down costs and ensure the government receives fair market value for the services procured. Full and open competition increases the likelihood of selecting a contractor that offers both quality services and competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Environmental Protection Agency's operations in California, ensuring their facilities are maintained and functional. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, janitorial, security, and potentially other operational support for EPA facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated within California, supporting the agency's regional presence and activities. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of jobs related to facilities management and support services, potentially benefiting local economies in California.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs to achieve a larger fixed fee, potentially leading to less cost efficiency.
The long contract duration (over 5 years) might reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs or incorporate newer, more cost-effective solutions.
Lack of specific performance metrics or outcome-based measures in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of services delivered.
The broad category of 'Facilities Support Services' could mask inefficiencies if not tightly managed and monitored.
No indication of small business participation suggests that the prime contractor may not be prioritizing subcontracting opportunities for smaller businesses.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, which typically leads to better pricing and selection of qualified contractors.
The contract addresses a clear need for ongoing facilities support, ensuring operational continuity for the EPA in California.
The fixed fee component of the CPFF contract provides some level of cost predictability for the agency, albeit with variable cost reimbursement.
The contractor, Ecology and Environment Inc., has a history of working with government agencies, suggesting familiarity with federal procurement processes.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of service providers, from large, diversified companies to specialized niche firms. The market size for facilities management is substantial, driven by the operational needs of government agencies, commercial enterprises, and institutions. This contract represents a portion of the federal government's spending on maintaining its physical infrastructure and ensuring operational readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facilities support contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and did not involve a small business prime contractor (ss: false). This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a larger entity, potentially Ecology and Environment Inc. itself or a large business prime. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting to small businesses. Without this data, it's difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem, though it implies that opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting tiers rather than direct prime contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracting officers and program managers. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure necessitates rigorous oversight to ensure that costs incurred are reasonable and allocable to the contract, and that the fixed fee is earned. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's terms and conditions, likely including performance standards, reporting requirements, and remedies for non-performance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

EPA Facilities Management Contracts
Federal Facilities Support Services
Environmental Consulting Services
Government Operations and Maintenance Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Long contract duration may limit flexibility and adoption of newer technologies.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data hinders effectiveness assessment.
No explicit small business subcontracting data available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $24.5 million to ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-12-15. End: 2006-03-14.

What was the specific scope of 'Facilities Support Services' provided under this contract?

The provided data categorizes this contract under NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services), but does not detail the specific services rendered. Typically, facilities support encompasses a broad range of activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical structures and grounds. This could include, but is not limited to, building maintenance and repair, janitorial services, groundskeeping, pest control, security services, waste management, mail services, and potentially administrative support related to facility operations. The exact scope would have been defined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is not publicly available in this dataset. Understanding the precise services is crucial for evaluating performance and cost-effectiveness.

How did Ecology and Environment Inc.'s pricing compare to other bidders, given the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure?

The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. While the fixed fee is negotiated upfront, the total cost can vary based on actual expenses. The data indicates this contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' suggesting multiple bids were received. However, the specific pricing details of competing bids, including the proposed fixed fees and estimated costs, are not provided. To assess pricing competitiveness, one would need to compare the negotiated fixed fee and the projected total cost against benchmarks for similar services and the estimated costs submitted by other bidders. Without this comparative pricing data, it's impossible to definitively state how Ecology and Environment Inc.'s pricing compared.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' contract for facilities support?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to a fixed-price contract, as their allowable costs are reimbursed. While the fixed fee provides some predictability, the overall cost to the government can escalate if the contractor's actual costs are higher than anticipated. For facilities support, this could manifest in higher-than-expected maintenance expenses, material costs, or labor hours. Effective oversight by the agency is critical to scrutinize incurred costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable, and prevent potential cost overruns. The agency must also ensure the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for their effort and risk without being excessive.

What was the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the EPA in California prior to this contract?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific contract (awarded in 2000) and does not include information on historical spending patterns for facilities support services by the EPA in California or elsewhere. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to procurement data from previous years, identifying contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Such an analysis would help determine if this $24.5 million award represents an increase or decrease in spending, if it aligns with previous investment levels, or if there have been shifts in contracting strategies or service providers over time.

How effectively did Ecology and Environment Inc. perform under this contract, and were there any performance issues?

The provided dataset does not contain performance evaluation data, contractor past performance ratings, or details on any contract modifications, disputes, or terminations. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of Ecology and Environment Inc.'s performance under this specific contract. A thorough performance assessment would require reviewing contract close-out reports, performance reviews conducted by the EPA, and any available feedback from the agency's contracting officer or program managers regarding the quality, timeliness, and overall satisfaction with the services provided.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 368 PLEASANT VIEW DR, LANCASTER, NY, 23

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,170,408

Exercised Options: $7,292,119

Current Obligation: $24,466,665

Timeline