Department of Energy's $44.4M site operations contract awarded to Eagle Facility Management Services, lacking competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $44,447,525 ($44.4M)
Contractor: Eagle Facility Management Services
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 2004-12-01
End Date: 2009-11-30
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $24.4K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SITE OPERATIONS SERVICES (SOS)
Place of Performance
Location: MORGANTOWN, MONONGALIA County, WEST VIRGINIA, 26505
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $44.4 million to EAGLE FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES for work described as: SITE OPERATIONS SERVICES (SOS) Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure allows for performance incentives but can lead to higher overall costs if not managed tightly. 2. The absence of competition for this significant contract raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer dollars. 3. A long contract duration of 5 years (1825 days) suggests a need for stable, long-term service provision, but also limits opportunities for re-evaluation. 4. The contract's focus on site operations indicates critical infrastructure support, where reliable performance is paramount. 5. The lack of a small business set-aside suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to support small business growth. 6. The contract's value, while substantial, needs to be benchmarked against similar site operations contracts to assess true value for money.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this $44.4 million contract is challenging without comparable data for similar site operations services. The cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) pricing model, while allowing for performance incentives, can sometimes lead to costs exceeding those of fixed-price contracts if not meticulously overseen. The absence of competition further complicates a direct value assessment, as there's no market pressure to drive down prices. Without detailed breakdowns of costs and award fees, it's difficult to definitively state if the pricing is optimal or if taxpayers received the best possible value.
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 among multiple potential vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, often due to unique capabilities, existing infrastructure, or specific security requirements. The lack of competition means that the Department of Energy did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arises from a competitive bidding process.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no market pressure to ensure the most competitive pricing. It also limits opportunities for new or smaller businesses to enter into contracts with the agency.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Energy and its facilities in West Virginia, which receive essential site operations and maintenance services. The contract ensures the continued functioning and upkeep of critical government infrastructure, supporting the agency's mission. Geographic impact is localized to West Virginia, where the services are performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in facility management, maintenance, and related support roles within West Virginia.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may result in higher costs and reduced value for taxpayer money.
- Cost-plus-award-fee structure requires diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns.
- Long contract duration limits flexibility and opportunities for competitive re-bidding.
- Absence of small business participation noted.
Positive Signals
- Ensures continuity of essential site operations services for the Department of Energy.
- The award fee mechanism incentivizes contractor performance.
- The contract is for a significant duration, suggesting a stable and reliable service provider is in place.
Sector Analysis
The 'Other Building Equipment Contractors' (NAICS 238290) sector encompasses a wide range of services related to the installation and maintenance of building systems. This contract for site operations services falls within this broad category, focusing on the day-to-day management and upkeep of facilities. The federal government is a significant consumer of such services across numerous agencies and locations. Benchmarking this specific contract's value against the broader sector is difficult without more granular data on the scope of services provided, but it represents a substantial investment in maintaining government infrastructure.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements specifically aimed at small businesses. The award to Eagle Facility Management Services, a single entity, suggests that the primary focus was on securing the necessary operational capabilities rather than promoting small business participation through this specific procurement. This means potential opportunities for small businesses to engage in subcontracting or to compete for similar work in the future may be limited by this award.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. As a sole-source award, scrutiny might be heightened to ensure fair pricing and adequate performance. Transparency is dependent on the agency's public disclosure policies regarding contract details and performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Energy Facility Management Contracts
- Government Site Operations and Maintenance
- Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
- Sole-Source Federal Procurements
Risk Flags
- Lack of Competition
- Potential for Cost Overruns (CPAF)
- Limited Transparency in Pricing
- Long Contract Duration Risk
Tags
department-of-energy, site-operations, eagle-facility-management-services, west-virginia, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, sole-source, other-building-equipment-contractors, facility-management, infrastructure-support, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $44.4 million to EAGLE FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES. SITE OPERATIONS SERVICES (SOS)
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is EAGLE FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $44.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-12-01. End: 2009-11-30.
What is the track record of Eagle Facility Management Services with the Department of Energy or other federal agencies?
Information regarding the specific track record of Eagle Facility Management Services with the Department of Energy or other federal agencies is not provided in the data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or contract modifications, and the company's history with similar government contracts. Without this data, it is difficult to gauge their reliability, efficiency, and past success in fulfilling government requirements. Further investigation into federal procurement databases and performance rating systems would be necessary to establish a detailed performance history.
How does the awarded amount of $44.4 million compare to similar site operations contracts awarded by the Department of Energy or other agencies?
Direct comparison of the $44.4 million award is difficult without specific details on the scope of services, duration, and location of comparable contracts. Site operations can encompass a wide range of activities, from basic maintenance to complex facility management. However, for a 5-year contract, this amount suggests a significant operational footprint. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with similar service levels (e.g., custodial, groundskeeping, minor repairs, security) and contract types (CPAF) within the Department of Energy or across agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) or Department of Defense. The lack of competition for this award also implies that a true market-based price comparison is not readily available.
What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee contract for site operations?
The primary risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract for site operations include potential cost overruns and a lack of price competition. Since the contract is sole-source, there's no competitive pressure to drive down costs, potentially leading to higher prices than if multiple bids were solicited. The CPAF structure, while incentivizing performance, can also lead to increased costs if the base cost projections are inaccurate or if the award fee criteria are not tightly managed. This necessitates robust oversight from the agency to ensure that costs are reasonable and that the award fee is earned only for exceptional performance, mitigating the risk of paying inflated prices for standard services.
How effective is the cost-plus-award-fee structure in ensuring value for money in this context?
The effectiveness of the cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) structure in ensuring value for money is contingent on rigorous oversight and well-defined performance metrics. In theory, CPAF incentivizes contractors to perform well by offering additional profit (the award fee) for meeting or exceeding specific objectives. For site operations, this could mean rewarding efficiency, responsiveness, and high-quality maintenance. However, if the base cost is not well-controlled or if the award fee criteria are too easily met, the overall cost can escalate beyond what might be achieved with a fixed-price contract. The 'value for money' is maximized when the agency meticulously defines performance standards and diligently monitors both costs and achievements to ensure the award fee truly reflects superior performance and not just baseline service delivery.
What are the historical spending patterns for site operations services at this Department of Energy location or similar facilities?
Historical spending patterns for site operations services at this specific Department of Energy location or similar facilities are not detailed in the provided data. To analyze this, one would need access to past contract awards for site operations at this facility or comparable DOE sites, noting the contract values, durations, and service scopes. Examining trends over time—whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable—and understanding the reasons behind these shifts (e.g., changes in facility needs, inflation, contract structure) would be crucial. Without this historical context, it's challenging to determine if the current $44.4 million award represents a significant increase or is in line with previous investments in site operations.
What are the implications of the contract's long duration (5 years) on service quality and cost-effectiveness?
A long contract duration of 5 years for site operations offers stability and allows the contractor to become deeply familiar with the facility's needs, potentially leading to efficiencies and consistent service quality. It reduces the administrative burden and costs associated with frequent re-procurement. However, it also carries risks. Over an extended period, there's less opportunity to incorporate market-driven price reductions or benefit from technological advancements that might emerge. Furthermore, if the initial contractor selection or performance monitoring is flawed, the agency is locked into a potentially suboptimal arrangement for a considerable time, diminishing cost-effectiveness and potentially impacting service quality if performance degrades without easy recourse.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Building Equipment Contractors › Other Building Equipment Contractors
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: DE-RP26-04NT41818
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 3604 COLLINS FERRY RD., MORGANTOWN, WV, 26505
Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $46,500,000
Exercised Options: $46,500,000
Current Obligation: $44,447,525
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-12-01
Current End Date: 2009-11-30
Potential End Date: 2009-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-09-18
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)