EPA awards $2.45M contract for emergency response at Savage Lead Site in Illinois

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,449,000 ($2.4M)

Contractor: Environmental Restoration LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2025-09-18

End Date: 2026-08-30

Contract Duration: 346 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.1K/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: REGION 5, (ERRS V); TASK ORDER FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT SAVAGE LEAD SITE: (D579).

Place of Performance

Location: CHICAGO, COOK County, ILLINOIS, 60604

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $2.4 million to ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC for work described as: REGION 5, (ERRS V); TASK ORDER FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT SAVAGE LEAD SITE: (D579). Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Environmental Restoration LLC for remediation services. 2. Task order is for emergency response at a lead site. 3. Contract duration is approximately one year. 4. Funding is allocated for time and materials. 5. This is a task order under a larger contract vehicle. 6. The contract was awarded through full and open competition.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $2.45 million for approximately one year of remediation services appears within a reasonable range for emergency response actions at a contaminated site. Benchmarking against similar environmental remediation contracts is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work, site complexity, and required response levels. However, the time and materials pricing structure suggests that costs will be directly tied to the effort expended, which can be efficient if managed closely but also carries a risk of cost overruns if not carefully monitored.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded using full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that multiple potential offerors were considered. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this method generally promotes a competitive environment. The exclusion of sources clause suggests that certain entities may have been excluded for specific reasons, but the overall award process aimed for broad participation.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, potentially driving down prices and ensuring the government receives the best value.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benefits from this contract by securing essential services for environmental cleanup. The contract delivers emergency response and remediation services at the Savage Lead Site. The geographic impact is localized to the Savage Lead Site in Illinois. The contract supports the environmental cleanup workforce involved in remediation efforts.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the time and materials pricing structure if not closely managed.
Scope creep could increase costs beyond the initial $2.45 million if not strictly controlled.
Effectiveness of emergency response depends on the contractor's capabilities and adherence to safety protocols.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Contract is for emergency response, addressing a critical environmental need.
Contractor, Environmental Restoration LLC, likely has experience in remediation services.

Sector Analysis

Environmental remediation services represent a significant sector within the broader environmental services industry. This contract falls under remediation services, which involves cleaning up contaminated sites. The market for environmental remediation is driven by regulatory requirements and the need to address historical pollution. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific nature and scale of the contamination at the Savage Lead Site.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, Environmental Restoration LLC, will likely manage the execution of the work, and their subcontracting practices would need to be assessed separately if they engage other firms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a task order under a larger contract vehicle, there may be existing oversight mechanisms in place. Transparency will be dependent on the EPA's reporting practices for task orders and emergency response actions. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Superfund Program
Hazardous Waste Management
Emergency Response Contracts
Environmental Remediation Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to T&M pricing.
Scope creep risk in emergency response scenarios.
Effectiveness of remediation dependent on contractor execution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $2.4 million to ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC. REGION 5, (ERRS V); TASK ORDER FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT SAVAGE LEAD SITE: (D579).

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 $2.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-18. End: 2026-08-30.

What is the specific nature of the contamination at the Savage Lead Site that necessitates an emergency response?

The provided data identifies the contract as being for the 'EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT SAVAGE LEAD SITE'. While the specific contaminants are not detailed, the mention of 'Lead Site' strongly suggests lead contamination as the primary environmental hazard. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that can pose significant health risks, particularly to children, and can contaminate soil, water, and air. Emergency response actions typically involve immediate containment, stabilization, and initial cleanup measures to mitigate immediate threats to human health and the environment. Further details on the site's history, the extent of contamination, and the specific risks would be found in the EPA's site assessment reports and the detailed scope of work for this task order.

How does the $2.45 million cost compare to similar emergency remediation contracts for lead sites?

Benchmarking the $2.45 million cost for this emergency response task order against similar contracts is challenging without more granular data on the scope of work, site complexity, and the specific remediation activities required. Emergency responses can vary widely in cost depending on factors such as the volume of contaminated material, the depth of contamination, accessibility of the site, and the required speed of response. However, for a task order of approximately one year duration, $2.45 million is a substantial amount, suggesting a significant scope of work or a high level of urgency. A more precise comparison would require access to a database of comparable environmental remediation contracts, including details on the type of contamination, the size of the affected area, and the specific services rendered.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for Environmental Restoration LLC under this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Environmental Restoration LLC under this specific task order. However, for environmental remediation contracts, particularly those involving emergency response, typical KPIs would likely include adherence to safety protocols (e.g., zero lost-time incidents), timely completion of critical response milestones, effectiveness of containment measures, compliance with environmental regulations and cleanup standards, and proper disposal of hazardous materials. The contract's duration (ending August 30, 2026) and the time and materials (T&M) pricing structure suggest that performance will also be measured by the efficient use of labor and resources to achieve the defined remediation objectives within the allocated timeframe and budget. The EPA would monitor progress against the statement of work and established performance metrics.

What is the historical spending pattern of the EPA on remediation services, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?

The EPA's historical spending on remediation services, particularly through programs like Superfund, is substantial, often running into billions of dollars annually across numerous sites nationwide. This $2.45 million task order represents a specific, localized emergency response action rather than a long-term, large-scale Superfund cleanup. It fits within the EPA's broader mandate to address environmental contamination and protect public health. Emergency response contracts are typically used for immediate threats that require rapid intervention before a full-scale, long-term remediation strategy can be fully developed and funded. Therefore, this contract is a component of the EPA's overall strategy to manage environmental hazards, addressing a critical, time-sensitive need at the Savage Lead Site.

What are the potential risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for emergency environmental remediation?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, like the one awarded here, carry inherent risks, primarily related to cost control. Since payment is based on the actual hours worked by labor and the cost of materials used, there is a risk of cost escalation if the project scope is not clearly defined or if work is inefficiently performed. For emergency environmental remediation, this can be exacerbated by unforeseen site conditions, the need for specialized equipment or expertise that drives up material costs, or extended work hours due to the urgency. To mitigate these risks, the EPA would need to implement robust oversight, closely monitor labor hours and material expenditures, establish clear milestones, and potentially include cost ceilings or incentives within the contract terms to ensure value for taxpayer money.

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: $2,449,000

Exercised Options: $2,449,000

Current Obligation: $2,449,000

Actual Outlays: $232,851

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 68HE0422D0004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline