Environmental Protection Agency awards $3.55M contract for Route 31 sludge site cleanup in New Jersey

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,550,000 ($3.5M)

Contractor: Environmental Restoration LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2024-11-20

End Date: 2027-01-26

Contract Duration: 797 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: CONDUCT REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE ROUTE 31 SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE, IN WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NJ UNDER SITE ID A2C7 TO MITIGATE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF WORK.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, WARREN County, NEW JERSEY, 07882

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $3.5 million to ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC for work described as: CONDUCT REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE ROUTE 31 SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE, IN WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NJ UNDER SITE ID A2C7 TO MITIGATE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF WORK. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on mitigating groundwater contamination at a specific Superfund site. 2. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges. 3. Competition was conducted under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources', suggesting a specific reason for excluding some potential bidders. 4. The contract duration is approximately 2 years, indicating a medium-term remediation effort. 5. The primary contractor, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC, will be responsible for the physical cleanup activities. 6. The award is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, implying potential for future task orders.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $3.55 million for remediation services over approximately two years appears to be within a reasonable range for environmental cleanup projects of this nature. However, without specific benchmarks for the Route 31 site's contamination levels and complexity, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The Time and Materials pricing structure introduces inherent risk for cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts. Further analysis would require comparing the proposed labor rates and material costs to industry standards for similar environmental remediation tasks.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources'. This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, possibly due to specific qualifications, prior performance, or the nature of the remediation required. The exact number of bidders is not specified, but the exclusion clause suggests a potentially narrower field than a truly 'full and open' competition. This could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs if qualified competitors were unnecessarily excluded.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers are not benefiting from the lowest possible price achievable through a broader bidding process. The exclusion of sources warrants scrutiny to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition.

Public Impact

Residents and ecosystems in Washington Township, NJ, will benefit from reduced groundwater contamination. The primary service delivered is environmental remediation, specifically addressing sludge disposal site issues. The geographic impact is localized to the Route 31 sludge disposal site in Washington Township, NJ. The contract will likely involve a workforce of environmental scientists, engineers, and remediation technicians.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials pricing structure increases risk of cost overruns.
The 'Exclusion of Sources' in the competition method requires further investigation to ensure fairness and optimal pricing.
The specific remediation techniques and their effectiveness are not detailed in the provided data, posing a potential performance risk.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity in environmental restoration.
Clear objective to mitigate groundwater contamination, addressing a significant environmental concern.
Defined site and scope of work provide a clear target for remediation efforts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Environmental Remediation services sector, a critical component of the broader environmental services industry. This sector involves cleaning up contaminated sites, managing hazardous waste, and restoring ecosystems. The market is driven by regulatory requirements (like EPA mandates) and the need to address legacy pollution from industrial activities. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on Superfund site designations and government funding priorities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing costs for similar-sized Superfund site cleanups or hazardous waste removal projects.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions for this contract. Furthermore, there is no information regarding subcontracting plans or requirements. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, but it does not appear to be a primary focus of this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its project officers and technical representatives. Accountability measures would include adherence to the Statement of Work, performance milestones, and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Superfund Program
Hazardous Waste Management
Environmental Cleanup Contracts
Groundwater Remediation Projects

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (T&M Contract)
Limited Competition Justification
Contractor Performance History Unknown

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $3.5 million to ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC. CONDUCT REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE ROUTE 31 SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE, IN WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NJ UNDER SITE ID A2C7 TO MITIGATE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF WORK.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-11-20. End: 2027-01-26.

What is the specific nature and extent of the groundwater contamination at the Route 31 sludge disposal site?

The provided data does not detail the specific contaminants or the extent of groundwater contamination at the Route 31 sludge disposal site (Site ID A2C7). However, the contract's objective is to 'mitigate groundwater contamination,' implying that hazardous substances have leached into the groundwater, posing a risk to the environment and potentially human health. Site ID A2C7 likely corresponds to a specific designation within the EPA's Superfund program or a similar state-managed cleanup initiative. A thorough understanding of the contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, petroleum products) and their plume migration patterns would be crucial for effective remediation planning and cost estimation. This information is typically found in the site's Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) reports.

How does the $3.55 million contract value compare to similar environmental remediation projects managed by the EPA?

Benchmarking the $3.55 million contract value requires comparing it to similar environmental remediation projects, specifically those involving sludge disposal sites and groundwater contamination mitigation under the EPA's purview. Projects of this scale, with a duration of approximately two years, can vary significantly in cost due to factors like site complexity, contaminant type and concentration, volume of material to be treated or removed, and the chosen remediation technologies. While $3.55 million is a substantial sum, it may be considered moderate for a Superfund-related cleanup. For instance, larger, more complex sites requiring extensive excavation or in-situ treatment could cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Conversely, simpler containment or monitoring projects might cost less. Without detailed site-specific data, a precise comparison is challenging, but the award appears to be within a plausible range for a medium-sized remediation task.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Time and Materials' contract type for this remediation project?

The 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type for this environmental remediation project presents several potential risks, primarily concerning cost control. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for the actual cost of labor (at specified hourly rates) and materials used, plus a fee. This structure can lead to cost overruns if the scope of work expands unexpectedly, if labor hours are inefficiently utilized, or if material costs escalate. For the EPA, the risk is that the final cost could significantly exceed the initial $3.55 million estimate without a corresponding increase in the defined scope. Effective oversight, detailed tracking of hours and materials, and strong project management are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the contractor operates efficiently and within budgetary expectations.

What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply about the bidding process and potential contractor pool?

The contract clause 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a nuanced approach to competition. It suggests that the EPA initially intended to compete the requirement broadly but subsequently excluded specific sources from bidding. The reasons for exclusion are not provided but could stem from requirements for specialized expertise, unique equipment, prior performance on similar sites, or security clearances. While it aims for open competition among the remaining eligible sources, the exclusion inherently limits the pool of potential bidders. This could potentially reduce the level of price competition compared to a truly unrestricted 'full and open' competition, possibly leading to higher costs for taxpayers if the excluded sources were capable of performing the work competitively. The justification for excluding sources would need to be robust to ensure fair and effective use of government funds.

What is ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC's track record with the EPA on similar environmental remediation contracts?

The provided data identifies ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC as the contractor but does not offer details on their specific track record with the EPA or on similar environmental remediation projects. To assess their suitability and past performance, one would need to consult historical contract data, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any available project portfolios. A strong track record with the EPA on projects involving sludge removal, groundwater remediation, or Superfund site cleanups would indicate a lower performance risk. Conversely, a history of cost overruns, schedule delays, or quality issues on comparable contracts would raise concerns about the successful execution of this new award. Further due diligence is recommended to evaluate the contractor's experience and reliability.

What are the historical spending patterns for environmental remediation at the Route 31 site or similar EPA-managed sites?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for the Route 31 sludge disposal site or comparable EPA-managed sites. Understanding historical spending is crucial for context. If this site has had previous remediation efforts, analyzing their costs, effectiveness, and duration would inform the current contract's scope and budget. Similarly, examining spending on other EPA Superfund or hazardous waste sites of comparable size and complexity can provide benchmarks. For example, if similar sites typically cost $1-2 million for initial cleanup phases, then $3.55 million for a two-year effort might indicate a more complex or extensive undertaking. Without this historical data, it's difficult to assess if the current funding level is appropriate or if it represents an increase or decrease compared to past investments in environmental cleanup.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS PROTECTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1666 FABICK DR, FENTON, MO, 63026

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,550,000

Exercised Options: $3,550,000

Current Obligation: $3,550,000

Actual Outlays: $1,510,556

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 68HE0220D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline