EPA's $16.2M environmental consulting contract with Marasco Newton Group awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,200,530 ($16.2M)

Contractor: Marasco Newton Group Ltd, the

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2001-09-15

End Date: 2007-03-24

Contract Duration: 2,016 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22033

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $16.2 million to MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LTD, THE for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for environmental consulting services, indicating a need for specialized expertise. 2. The contract duration of over 5 years suggests a long-term requirement for these services. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, implying a broad market solicitation. 4. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can present cost control challenges if not managed closely. 5. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Marasco Newton Group Ltd. 6. The contract's value of $16.2 million over its period requires careful performance monitoring to ensure value. 7. The specific NAICS code 541620 points to environmental consulting and research services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $16.2 million over approximately 5.5 years averages around $2.9 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale environmental consulting contracts is difficult without more specific service details. The CPFF structure, while allowing flexibility, necessitates robust oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate for the work performed. Without detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the duration and scope suggest a significant investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This suggests a competitive process was intended to solicit the best offers. However, the data only shows one award, and further investigation would be needed to determine the number of bids received and the extent of the competition. A robust competitive process typically leads to better pricing and service innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality, ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential environmental consulting services. Services likely include technical assistance, research, policy analysis, and program support related to environmental protection. The geographic impact is likely national, given the EPA's mandate, though specific projects may have regional focuses. The contract supports specialized jobs within the environmental consulting sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to higher costs if not managed diligently.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess efficiency.
Single award without details on other bidders raises questions about the true level of competition achieved.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight to ensure continued relevance and value.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting an effort to maximize market participation.
The contract addresses critical environmental consulting needs for a major federal agency.
The duration indicates a stable, long-term need for these services, potentially leading to vendor expertise development.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting is a significant sector within professional services, encompassing a wide range of activities from site assessment and remediation to regulatory compliance and policy development. The market is characterized by specialized firms, often requiring deep scientific and technical expertise. Federal agencies like the EPA are major clients, contracting for services that support their regulatory and operational missions. Spending in this sector is driven by environmental regulations, infrastructure projects, and ongoing monitoring requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific services procured, but federal contracts for environmental consulting can range from thousands to tens of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. This suggests the competition was open to all responsible sources, regardless of size. While there's no explicit small business set-aside, the prime contractor may still engage small businesses as subcontractors. However, without subcontracting plans or data, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. The focus appears to be on securing specialized expertise through a broad competitive process.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to monitor costs against the fixed fee and ensure the contractor is operating efficiently and within the agreed-upon terms. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements mandated by the contract. The Inspector General's office for the EPA would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Environmental Planning and Impact Analysis
Environmental Compliance and Permitting
Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
Federal Environmental Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight.
Limited data on specific services rendered.
Need for detailed performance metrics to fully assess value.
Competition level requires further investigation beyond 'full and open' designation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $16.2 million to MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LTD, THE. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MARASCO NEWTON GROUP LTD, THE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-09-15. End: 2007-03-24.

What specific environmental consulting services were rendered under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Environmental Consulting Services' under NAICS code 541620. This broad category typically encompasses a range of activities such as environmental impact assessments, site investigations, feasibility studies, regulatory compliance assistance, hazardous waste management consulting, and the development of environmental policies and strategies. Without access to the detailed contract statement of work (SOW), the precise nature and scope of services delivered remain unspecified. However, given the contracting agency (EPA) and the contract's value and duration, it is reasonable to infer that the services supported significant environmental protection initiatives, research, or program management efforts.

How does the $16.2 million contract value compare to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by the EPA?

The $16.2 million total award value over approximately 5.5 years (September 2001 to March 2007) equates to an average annual value of roughly $2.9 million. This figure places it as a substantial, but not exceptionally large, contract within the federal environmental consulting space. The EPA frequently awards contracts in the millions for environmental services, particularly for large-scale projects, research, or ongoing support. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze contracts with similar scopes of work, durations, and specific service types (e.g., remediation oversight vs. policy analysis). However, based on general federal procurement data, this contract appears to be within the typical range for significant, multi-year environmental consulting engagements for a major agency.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for environmental consulting?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts, like the one awarded to Marasco Newton Group, present specific risks. The primary risk is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government agrees to cover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government still pays the agreed-upon costs and the fixed fee. This necessitates stringent government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, and that the fixed fee accurately reflects the effort and risk involved. Scope creep, where the project's requirements expand without a corresponding adjustment to the fee, can also inflate costs. Effective management requires clear definition of work, robust cost tracking, and regular audits.

What was the track record of Marasco Newton Group Ltd. prior to or during this contract?

Information regarding Marasco Newton Group Ltd.'s specific track record prior to or during this particular EPA contract (awarded in 2001) is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance, one would typically examine past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any documented disputes or claims, and their history with other federal agencies. A comprehensive review would involve looking at their success in delivering similar services, meeting deadlines, staying within budget constraints (especially relevant for CPFF), and overall client satisfaction. Without access to these performance records, it's impossible to definitively evaluate their track record based solely on the contract award data.

How did the 'full and open competition' process likely influence the pricing and quality of services obtained?

Awarding a contract under 'full and open competition' theoretically maximizes the pool of potential bidders, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive proposals that offer both favorable pricing and high-quality services. This process allows the government to solicit offers from any interested and responsible source, fostering a market-driven environment. The expectation is that multiple bidders will compete, driving down prices through competitive pressures and encouraging innovation to meet the government's needs. However, the effectiveness of this process in influencing price and quality depends on factors such as the clarity of the solicitation, the number of bids actually received, and the evaluation criteria used. If only a few bids were submitted, or if the evaluation heavily favored factors other than price, the competitive advantage might be diminished.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded to a single vendor, Marasco Newton Group Ltd.?

The data indicates a single award was made to Marasco Newton Group Ltd. for this contract. While the solicitation was 'full and open,' the outcome was a sole award. This is common in government contracting, especially when a specific vendor demonstrates the best overall value based on the solicitation's criteria (which may include technical approach, past performance, and price). It signifies that, among all the proposals received, Marasco Newton Group's was deemed the most advantageous to the government. It does not necessarily imply a lack of competition during the bidding phase, but rather that their proposal was selected over others. Further analysis of the number of bids received would clarify the competitive landscape.

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) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: SRA International, Inc. (UEI: 606261683)

Address: 2801 CLARENDON BLVD, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,113,788

Exercised Options: $8,939,202

Current Obligation: $16,200,530

Timeline