DoD's $16.3M ESPC contract with Johnson Controls awarded in 2014, set to expire in 2031

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,308,841 ($16.3M)

Contractor: Johnson Controls Government Systems, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-09-29

End Date: 2031-09-30

Contract Duration: 6,210 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ESPC FT MCCOY

Place of Performance

Location: SPARTA, MONROE County, WISCONSIN, 54656

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.3 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC for work described as: ESPC FT MCCOY Key points: 1. Contract value of $16.3M over its lifespan suggests a significant investment in facility modernization. 2. The long duration (2014-2031) indicates a multi-year commitment to energy and facility improvements. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, implying a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The contract is a Firm Fixed Price type, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting suggests larger prime contractor involvement. 6. The contract's focus on Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) points to specialized technical expertise. 7. The 'WI' (Wisconsin) state code may indicate the primary performance location or administrative hub.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking this $16.3M Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) requires detailed analysis of the specific energy conservation measures and projected savings. However, ESPCs are generally designed to be cost-neutral or cost-saving, with savings from reduced utility consumption funding the project. The long performance period (over 16 years) is typical for ESPCs to allow for full recovery of investment and realization of savings. Without specific performance data or comparable projects at Fort McCoy, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the fixed-price nature provides cost certainty.

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 robust bidding environment, which typically leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition is a positive indicator for price discovery and selection of the most capable offeror.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best possible pricing and technical solutions for the energy efficiency upgrades at Fort McCoy.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and personnel at Fort McCoy, through improved facility infrastructure and potentially reduced operating costs. The contract delivers engineering services focused on energy conservation measures, likely leading to modernized facilities and reduced utility consumption. The geographic impact is centered on Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, enhancing its operational efficiency and sustainability. Workforce implications may include specialized engineering and technical roles for the contractor, and potentially reduced utility management burdens for government staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 16 years) could lead to vendor lock-in or reduced flexibility for future technological upgrades.
Lack of specific performance metrics or savings data makes it difficult to independently verify the 'value-for-money' aspect.
Firm Fixed Price contracts can sometimes lead to scope creep issues if not managed meticulously, potentially increasing costs beyond initial projections.
The absence of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller, specialized firms in the region.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded favorable pricing.
Firm Fixed Price contract structure transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract addresses critical infrastructure needs through energy efficiency improvements, aligning with sustainability goals.
Long-term nature allows for comprehensive implementation and realization of energy savings.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), specifically related to energy efficiency and facility modernization. The market for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) is substantial within the federal government, driven by mandates for energy reduction and infrastructure upgrades. Federal agencies frequently utilize ESPCs to finance improvements without upfront capital, leveraging future energy savings. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale ESPCs awarded to federal facilities for similar scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside (sb=false) and does not appear to have specific small business subcontracting requirements noted (ss=false). This suggests that the prime contract was awarded to a large business entity, and opportunities for small businesses would likely be through direct subcontracting by the prime, rather than mandated set-asides. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore indirect, dependent on the prime contractor's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Army contracting officers and program managers at Fort McCoy. The Firm Fixed Price nature of the contract implies a focus on deliverable completion and adherence to the defined scope. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse, but specific IG involvement is not indicated in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)
Department of Defense Facility Modernization Programs
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Army Corps of Engineers - Engineering Services
Fort McCoy Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to technological obsolescence.
Lack of detailed performance data hinders independent value assessment.
Potential for scope creep in Firm Fixed Price contracts.
Limited visibility into small business subcontracting opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.3 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC. ESPC FT MCCOY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-29. End: 2031-09-30.

What specific energy conservation measures are included in this contract, and what are the projected energy savings?

The provided data does not detail the specific energy conservation measures (ECMs) or projected energy savings. ESPCs typically encompass a range of upgrades such as HVAC system improvements, lighting retrofits, building envelope enhancements, and renewable energy installations. The projected savings are crucial for justifying the contract's value and are usually calculated based on baseline energy usage and the anticipated performance of the implemented ECMs. A thorough review would require access to the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) and any associated energy audit reports.

How does the $16.3 million contract value compare to similar ESPCs awarded by the Department of Defense?

The $16.3 million value for this ESPC awarded in 2014 is a moderate-sized contract within the federal landscape. ESPCs can range from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the size and complexity of the facility. For a large military installation like Fort McCoy, this value suggests a comprehensive set of energy efficiency upgrades. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze ESPCs awarded around the same period to similar military bases, considering factors like facility square footage, existing infrastructure condition, and the scope of work.

What is the track record of Johnson Controls Government Systems, LLC in performing federal ESPC contracts?

Johnson Controls Government Systems, LLC is a known entity in the federal contracting space, particularly for building technologies and energy solutions. They have a history of performing ESPCs for various government agencies. Assessing their specific track record on this contract would involve reviewing past performance evaluations (if available), project completion history, and any documented issues or successes on similar federal ESPC projects. Their extensive experience suggests a capacity to manage complex projects, but individual contract performance can vary.

What are the potential risks associated with the long contract duration (2014-2031)?

The extended duration of this ESPC (over 16 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, technological advancements in energy efficiency could render the implemented solutions outdated before the contract concludes, potentially diminishing long-term savings or requiring costly retrofits. Secondly, there's a risk of 'vendor lock-in,' where the government becomes heavily reliant on the incumbent contractor for maintenance and upgrades, potentially limiting future competitive options. Lastly, changes in energy prices, regulatory environments, or the facility's mission could impact the accuracy of the original savings projections, requiring careful contract management and potential modifications.

How is the performance of the contract monitored to ensure energy savings are realized?

Performance monitoring for ESPCs typically involves a Measurement and Verification (M&V) plan, often detailed within the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). This plan outlines how energy savings will be tracked, calculated, and reported. The government contracting officer and technical representatives are responsible for overseeing the contractor's adherence to the M&V plan and ensuring that the projected savings are being achieved. Regular site inspections, data analysis, and performance reviews are standard oversight mechanisms. The effectiveness of these measures depends on the rigor of the M&V plan and the diligence of the government oversight team.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services at Fort McCoy or similar Army installations?

Historical spending on engineering services at Fort McCoy or similar Army installations can vary significantly based on modernization needs, infrastructure condition, and specific mission requirements. ESPCs represent a specific category of engineering services focused on energy efficiency and are often funded through savings, differentiating them from traditional design or construction engineering contracts. To analyze trends, one would need to examine historical contract data for Fort McCoy and comparable installations, looking at the volume and value of engineering service awards across different categories over time. This would help contextualize the $16.3M ESPC within broader spending patterns.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › OTHER QUALITY, TEST, INSPECT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912DY08R0019

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 507 E. MICHIGAN ST., MILWAUKEE, WI, 53202

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,308,841

Exercised Options: $16,308,841

Current Obligation: $16,308,841

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912DY09D0017

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline