EPA awards $2.2M contract for Upper Columbia River environmental remediation services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,235,434 ($2.2M)

Contractor: Environmental Quality Management, Inc

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2024-06-06

End Date: 2025-05-31

Contract Duration: 359 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: R10 ERRS 68HE0720D0002: UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER TCRA 2024

Place of Performance

Location: BOTHELL, KING County, WASHINGTON, 98011

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $2.2 million to ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, INC for work described as: R10 ERRS 68HE0720D0002: UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER TCRA 2024 Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical environmental cleanup in the Upper Columbia River region. 2. Environmental Quality Management, Inc. secured the award. 3. The contract duration is approximately one year, indicating a defined scope of work. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 5. The fixed-price nature of the contract helps manage cost certainty for the government. 6. The contract is a delivery order, likely part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $2.2 million for approximately one year of remediation services appears reasonable given the specialized nature of environmental cleanup. Benchmarking against similar EPA remediation contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control. The award amount is within the expected range for such services, especially considering the potential complexities of river basin remediation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-defined criteria, possibly related to prior performance or specific capabilities. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a competitive process aimed at achieving the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: This competitive approach is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions, driving down costs and improving service quality.

Public Impact

Benefits the environmental health of the Upper Columbia River region. Delivers essential remediation services to address environmental contamination. Geographic impact is focused on Washington state, specifically the Upper Columbia River area. Supports a specialized workforce in environmental remediation and engineering.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial assessments underestimate the extent of contamination.
Dependence on the contractor's technical expertise for effective remediation.
Environmental risks associated with the remediation process itself.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Contract duration is clearly defined, allowing for focused execution.

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, historical industrial activity, and ongoing environmental stewardship efforts. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within EPA's broader contracting data for Superfund sites and other environmental cleanup initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this particular contract. As it was awarded under full and open competition, it's possible that small businesses could have participated directly or indirectly through joint ventures or subcontracting opportunities, but this is not explicitly detailed in the award information.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracting officers and technical representatives. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for performance within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally maintained through federal contract databases like FPDS. The EPA's Office of Inspector General may conduct audits or investigations if specific concerns arise regarding contract performance or financial integrity.

Related Government Programs

Superfund Program
RCRA Corrective Actions
Clean Water Act Programs
Environmental Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Potential for unforeseen site conditions impacting scope and cost.
Contractor performance risk requires diligent oversight.
Environmental risks inherent in remediation activities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $2.2 million to ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, INC. R10 ERRS 68HE0720D0002: UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER TCRA 2024

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-06-06. End: 2025-05-31.

What is the historical spending pattern of the EPA on environmental remediation services in the Upper Columbia River region?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for the EPA in the Upper Columbia River region requires accessing detailed contract databases over several fiscal years. While this specific contract is for $2.2 million, understanding the broader trend involves looking at previous awards for similar remediation projects in that geographic area. Factors such as the number and value of previous contracts, the types of services procured (e.g., site assessment, cleanup, monitoring), and the primary contractors involved would provide context. Significant historical spending might indicate ongoing environmental challenges or a sustained commitment to the region's cleanup. Conversely, sporadic or declining spending could suggest shifting priorities or the completion of major remediation phases. Without access to a comprehensive historical database filtered for this specific region and service type, a precise analysis is not possible, but such an analysis would be crucial for long-term budget planning and assessing the continuity of environmental efforts.

How does the per-unit cost of this remediation contract compare to similar EPA contracts for river basin cleanups?

A direct per-unit cost comparison for this $2.2 million contract is challenging without knowing the specific units of service delivered (e.g., cubic yards of soil remediated, linear feet of shoreline cleaned, volume of water treated). However, we can assess its value relative to the contract's duration and scope. The contract is for approximately one year, suggesting a focused effort. If similar contracts for comparable river basin cleanups of similar scale and complexity have higher annual values or longer durations for similar outcomes, this contract might represent good value. Conversely, if other contracts achieve more significant environmental improvements for a lower annual cost, it could indicate potential inefficiencies or higher pricing in this instance. Benchmarking would ideally involve comparing cost per acre remediated, cost per ton of contaminant removed, or cost per mile of riverbank addressed, adjusted for inflation and regional cost differences.

What is the track record of Environmental Quality Management, Inc. with the EPA for similar remediation projects?

Environmental Quality Management, Inc. (EQM) has a history of performing environmental services for various government agencies, including the EPA. To assess their track record specifically for similar remediation projects, one would need to review their past performance on contracts involving river basin cleanups, hazardous waste management, and site remediation. Key indicators include contract performance ratings, any history of disputes or contract terminations, and the successful completion of projects within budget and schedule. EQM's experience with complex environmental challenges and their ability to meet regulatory compliance standards are critical. A review of their past performance on EPA contracts would reveal their expertise, reliability, and overall value proposition as a contractor for this type of critical environmental work.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific remediation contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risks for this remediation contract include unforeseen site conditions (e.g., discovering more extensive contamination than initially assessed), potential environmental incidents during cleanup operations, contractor performance issues, and regulatory changes impacting the remediation approach. Mitigation strategies often involve thorough site investigations prior to finalizing cleanup plans, robust health and safety protocols, contingency planning, performance monitoring by the EPA, and clear contractual terms that define responsibilities and remedies. The fixed-price nature of the contract incentivizes the contractor to manage costs and risks effectively, while the EPA's oversight ensures compliance and quality. The 'full and open competition' aspect also suggests that multiple bidders were vetted, potentially reducing the risk of selecting an underqualified contractor.

How does the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' procurement method impact the overall cost-effectiveness for taxpayers?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements. While 'full and open' suggests a wide solicitation, the 'exclusion of sources' indicates that certain potential bidders were not considered, possibly due to pre-qualification criteria, past performance issues, or specific technical needs. This can lead to a more focused competition among capable vendors, potentially resulting in better technical solutions and competitive pricing from a qualified pool. For taxpayers, this method can be cost-effective if the exclusions are justified and lead to selecting a contractor best suited for the complex task, thereby minimizing risks of delays, cost overruns, or suboptimal outcomes. However, if the exclusions are overly restrictive or not well-justified, it could limit competition and potentially lead to higher costs than a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 CARILLON BLVD 100, CINCINNATI, OH, 45240

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,235,434

Exercised Options: $2,235,434

Current Obligation: $2,235,434

Actual Outlays: $2,217,884

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 18

Total Subaward Amount: $1,401,884

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 68HE0720D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline