Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing awards $6.6M contract for electric power distribution in DC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,600,000 ($6.6M)

Contractor: Potomac Electric Power CO

Awarding Agency: Department of the Treasury

Start Date: 2025-10-30

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 335 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: DCF ELECTRICITY UTILITIES FY26

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20001

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Treasury obligated $6.6 million to POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO for work described as: DCF ELECTRICITY UTILITIES FY26 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a one-year utility service agreement in a major metropolitan area. 2. Sole-source award limits opportunities for competitive pricing and potential cost savings. 3. Lack of competition may indicate limited market availability or specific infrastructure requirements. 4. Performance period aligns with typical utility service cycles. 5. Contract supports essential operational needs for a critical government facility. 6. No small business set-aside noted, suggesting limited direct impact on small business contracting goals for this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $6.6 million for one year of electric power distribution in Washington D.C. appears to be within a reasonable range for utility services in a major metropolitan area. Benchmarking against similar contracts is challenging without more specific details on the exact services and demand levels. However, given the sole-source nature, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing represents the best value for money compared to what might be achieved through a competitive process.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This typically occurs when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, often due to unique capabilities, existing infrastructure, or regulatory requirements. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was not utilized, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple bidders had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the most cost-effective solution due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government did not have the opportunity to leverage multiple offers to secure the lowest possible price for essential utility services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), ensuring continuous operation of its facilities. The service delivered is essential electric power distribution, critical for powering machinery and maintaining facility operations. The geographic impact is localized to Washington D.C., specifically supporting the BEP's infrastructure. There are no direct workforce implications mentioned, as this is a utility service contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potential taxpayer savings.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Potential for price escalation in future contract renewals without competition.

Positive Signals

Ensures continuity of essential services for a critical government function.
Contract is for a defined period, allowing for future reassessment of competition.
Awarded to a known provider of utility services in the region.

Sector Analysis

The electric utility sector is a heavily regulated industry characterized by high infrastructure costs and often operating as natural monopolies in specific geographic areas. Contracts for electric power distribution typically involve long-term agreements to ensure reliable service. The market size for utility services is substantial, but competition is often limited to specific service territories. This contract fits within the broader category of essential services procurement for government facilities.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. Given the nature of utility services and the sole-source award to a large utility provider, there are no direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses indicated within this award. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore minimal for this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's contracting and financial management departments. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the contract, ensuring reliable power delivery as specified. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with justification for this approach being key to assessing accountability.

Related Government Programs

Federal Utility Contracts
Government Facility Operations
Energy Procurement
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Operations

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competitive bidding

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Treasury awarded $6.6 million to POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO. DCF ELECTRICITY UTILITIES FY26

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Treasury (Bureau of Engraving and Printing).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-10-30. End: 2026-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for electric power at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing?

Analyzing historical spending for electric power at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) is crucial for understanding cost trends and identifying potential anomalies. While specific historical dollar amounts for this contract are not provided in the data, the current award is for FY26 with an estimated value of $6.6 million. To assess historical patterns, one would need to examine previous contracts for similar electric power distribution services awarded to Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) or other providers serving the BEP's facilities. This would involve looking at contract values, durations, and any adjustments made over time. A significant increase in cost year-over-year, especially without a corresponding increase in demand or service scope, could indicate a need for closer review of pricing and competition strategies. Conversely, stable or decreasing costs might suggest effective contract management or favorable market conditions.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar utility contracts in the Washington D.C. area?

Comparing the pricing of this $6.6 million contract for electric power distribution in Washington D.C. to similar utility contracts requires access to a benchmark database of government and commercial utility agreements in the region. Given that this is a sole-source award to Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO), a direct comparison with competitively bid contracts would be most insightful. If comparable contracts exist, one would analyze the price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) or a similar unit metric, factoring in demand charges, service level agreements, and contract duration. Without such comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state whether this contract represents excellent, good, or fair value. However, the absence of competition inherently raises a flag regarding the potential for achieving the lowest possible price.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for essential utility services?

Sole-source awards for essential utility services, like this electric power distribution contract for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, carry several specific risks. The primary risk is the lack of price competition, which can lead to the government paying a premium compared to what might be achieved in a competitive bidding process. This can result in inefficient use of taxpayer funds. Another risk is vendor lock-in; if the current provider is the only option, the government has limited leverage in future negotiations. Furthermore, without the scrutiny of multiple bids, there's a reduced incentive for the sole provider to optimize costs or enhance service efficiency. Dependence on a single provider also introduces supply chain risk, although for established utilities, this is often mitigated by regulatory oversight and the inherent difficulty of duplicating infrastructure.

What is the track record of Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) in serving federal government contracts?

Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) has a long-standing history of providing utility services, including electricity distribution, to various entities within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, which includes federal government facilities. Their track record in serving federal contracts would typically involve adherence to contract terms, reliability of service, and compliance with federal procurement regulations. Assessing their specific performance on past federal contracts would require reviewing contract performance reports, any past performance evaluations, and records of disputes or contract modifications. Generally, established utility providers like PEPCO are expected to maintain a high level of service reliability due to the critical nature of their operations and regulatory oversight. However, the specifics of their performance on this particular sole-source award would depend on the terms negotiated and the BEP's ongoing monitoring.

How does the duration of this contract (335 days) align with typical utility service agreements?

The contract duration of 335 days, which is slightly less than a full calendar year (ending September 30, 2026, implying a start around October 2025), aligns well with typical utility service agreements, especially for federal fiscal years. Federal contracts often align with the fiscal year, which runs from October 1st to September 30th. Utility services are generally ongoing, and contracts are often awarded on an annual basis or for multi-year periods with annual option years. A duration of approximately one year allows the agency to procure essential services while retaining the flexibility to re-evaluate the contract, competition strategy, and pricing in subsequent years. This duration is standard for many service contracts, including those for utilities, providing a balance between service continuity and procurement flexibility.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › UTILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 701 9TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20001

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,600,000

Exercised Options: $6,600,000

Current Obligation: $6,600,000

Actual Outlays: $1,360,200

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 2031ZA23D00003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline