DOE's $252M Fluor Enterprises contract for Ohio environmental cleanup shows long duration and cost-plus structure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $252,170,548 ($252.2M)
Contractor: Fluor Enterprises Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 1999-10-15
End Date: 2004-06-15
Contract Duration: 1,705 days
Daily Burn Rate: $147.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45253
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $252.2 million to FLUOR ENTERPRISES INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded in 1999 for environmental remediation services, indicating a long-term need for complex cleanup operations. 2. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes contractor performance while allowing for cost reimbursement. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 4. The contract duration of over 4 years (1705 days) points to the scale and complexity of the environmental challenges. 5. The contractor, Fluor Enterprises Inc., has a significant presence in large-scale government projects. 6. Geographic focus on Ohio highlights specific regional environmental concerns addressed by this contract.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and specific environmental remediation focus. The cost-plus award fee structure means the final cost could vary based on performance. Without detailed breakdowns of services rendered and comparable remediation projects from the same era, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the significant dollar amount suggests a substantial scope of work was undertaken.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This competitive process is generally expected to drive better pricing and service quality. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition in securing optimal terms for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of potential solutions, maximizing the efficient use of public funds.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the residents and environment of Ohio, through the cleanup of contaminated sites. Services delivered include complex environmental remediation, likely involving hazardous waste management and site restoration. The geographic impact is concentrated in Ohio, addressing specific state-level environmental challenges. The contract supports a workforce involved in specialized environmental engineering, construction, and hazardous material handling.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration could lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
- Cost-plus award fee structures can sometimes incentivize higher spending if performance metrics are not rigorously defined.
- Environmental remediation projects are inherently complex and can encounter unforeseen challenges, potentially increasing costs and timelines.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
- The use of an award fee structure implies performance incentives were in place.
- Fluor Enterprises Inc. is a large, experienced contractor in this domain, suggesting capability.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the environmental services sector, a critical area for government agencies responsible for land management and remediation. The market for environmental cleanup is substantial, driven by regulatory requirements and historical industrial activity. This specific contract likely addresses legacy contamination issues, a common challenge for agencies like the Department of Energy. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large-scale environmental remediation contracts awarded by federal agencies.
Small Business Impact
Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not explicitly provided in the data. Given the scale and specialized nature of environmental remediation, large prime contractors often manage these projects, with opportunities for small businesses potentially arising through subcontracting. Further investigation would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. Inspector General offices often conduct audits and investigations into federal contracts to ensure accountability and prevent fraud. Transparency would depend on the public availability of contract performance reports and financial data, which may be limited for older contracts.
Related Government Programs
- Superfund Program (EPA)
- Department of Defense Environmental Restoration Program
- Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may indicate potential for scope creep or unforeseen cost increases.
- Cost-plus contract types can sometimes lead to higher final costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently.
Tags
environmental-remediation, department-of-energy, fluor-enterprises-inc, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, ohio, long-term-contract, hazardous-waste, site-cleanup, federal-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $252.2 million to FLUOR ENTERPRISES INC. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is FLUOR ENTERPRISES INC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $252.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-10-15. End: 2004-06-15.
What specific environmental sites in Ohio were addressed by this Fluor Enterprises contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact environmental sites in Ohio addressed by this contract. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing cleanup activities at numerous sites across the nation, many of which involve former nuclear weapons production facilities or research laboratories. Given the contract's duration and scope, it likely involved remediation of sites with significant contamination, potentially including soil, groundwater, and building decontamination. Further research into DOE's historical cleanup projects in Ohio during the late 1990s and early 2000s would be necessary to identify the specific locations and types of contamination remediated under this award.
How did the performance of Fluor Enterprises Inc. compare to expectations under the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure?
The provided data indicates the contract type was 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' (CPAF), suggesting that Fluor Enterprises Inc.'s performance was evaluated against specific criteria to determine an award fee. However, the data does not include details on the performance metrics, the awarded fees, or Fluor's actual performance ratings. To assess how Fluor's performance compared to expectations, one would need to access contract performance reports, award fee determinations, and potentially any associated documentation from the Department of Energy. Without this information, it's impossible to definitively state whether the contractor met or exceeded performance targets and received the maximum allowable award fee.
What were the primary risks associated with this environmental remediation contract, and how were they managed?
Environmental remediation contracts inherently carry significant risks, including unforeseen site conditions (e.g., discovering unexpected types or levels of contamination), technical challenges in cleanup methods, regulatory changes, and potential cost overruns. For this specific contract, risks might have included the complexity of hazardous waste disposal, long-term monitoring requirements, and potential impacts on local ecosystems and communities. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure itself implies a risk-sharing mechanism where the government bears costs while incentivizing contractor efficiency. Specific risk management strategies employed by the Department of Energy and Fluor Enterprises would likely have included detailed site characterization, robust safety protocols, contingency planning, and regular progress reviews.
What is the historical spending trend for similar environmental remediation contracts awarded by the Department of Energy?
The Department of Energy (DOE) has a long history of awarding substantial contracts for environmental remediation, stemming from its legacy of nuclear weapons production and energy research. Historical spending in this category has been consistently high, often in the billions of dollars annually, as DOE addresses cleanup responsibilities at numerous sites nationwide. Contracts vary widely in scope, duration, and value, ranging from site-specific cleanup projects to large, multi-site management and operating contracts. Factors influencing spending include the number of sites requiring cleanup, the complexity of contamination, regulatory requirements, and available appropriations. This $252 million contract for Fluor Enterprises in Ohio represents one significant component within DOE's broader environmental management portfolio over the years.
What was the total cost incurred by the government for this contract, considering it was a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) type?
The provided data lists the 'Award Amount' (a) as $252,170,548.03. For a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, the award amount typically represents the estimated total cost plus the potential award fee. The actual total cost incurred by the government would be the sum of the allowable costs incurred by the contractor (Fluor Enterprises Inc.) plus any award fee determined based on performance. The CPAF structure means the final cost could be less than, equal to, or potentially more than the initial award amount, depending on how well the contractor met performance objectives. Without access to the final cost reports and award fee determinations for this contract, the precise total expenditure remains unknown, but the award amount provides a strong indication of the contract's overall financial scale.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Fluor Corporation (UEI: 006907190)
Address: 3333 MICHELSON DR, IRVINE
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-10-15
Current End Date: 2004-06-15
Potential End Date: 2004-06-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-11-09
More Contracts from Fluor Enterprises Inc
- IA TAC Support - Identify Potential Temporary Housing Solutions, Resources, and Requirements in Louisiana for People Displaced AS a Result of Hurricane Katrina, to Include Sweep Team Services to Identify and Assess Specific Community Needs; Technical Support to Strike Teams in Disaster Associated Activities — $874.0M (Department of Homeland Security)
- Transmission and Distribution — $505.7M (Department of Defense)
- Repair and Restore ALL Aspects of the Puerto Rico Power Grid. Igf::ot::igf — $276.3M (Department of Defense)
- Technical Assistance — $171.8M (Department of Homeland Security)
- IA TAC Site Development: Provide Construction Services, Materials, Labor and Equip. for Infrastructure/Utilities and Other Related Activities to Support Temporary Housing or Other Solutions for Hurricane Katrina — $134.7M (Department of Homeland Security)
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)