DOE's $4.16B Rocky Flats Closure Contract with Kaiser-Hill Faced No Competition, Raising Cost Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,156,910,383 ($4.2B)

Contractor: Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Energy

Start Date: 2000-01-15

End Date: 2006-12-15

Contract Duration: 2,526 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.6M/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: GREENWOOD VILLAGE, ARAPAHOE County, COLORADO, 80111

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Energy obligated $4.16 billion to KAISER-HILL COMPANY, LLC for work described as: ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE CONTRACT Key points: 1. The $4.16 billion contract for Rocky Flats closure was awarded without competition, potentially limiting price discovery. 2. Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category, making direct sector benchmarks challenging without more detail. 3. The lack of competition is a significant risk factor, potentially leading to inflated costs for taxpayers. 4. The contract's duration of 2526 days (approx. 7 years) indicates a long-term commitment with ongoing oversight needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Contract value is substantial at over $4.16 billion. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to assess if this price reflects fair market value for facilities support services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was not available for competition, indicating a sole-source or limited source award. This significantly reduces the opportunity for price negotiation and potentially leads to higher costs.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid more than necessary for these services, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs.

Public Impact

Environmental cleanup and site closure are critical public services with long-term implications. Large federal contracts without competition can set precedents for future procurements. Transparency and accountability are paramount when significant taxpayer funds are involved in complex projects like nuclear site closure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) encompass a wide range of activities. Benchmarking this specific closure contract is difficult without granular details on the services provided, but large-scale environmental remediation contracts can be very costly.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded to small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). The scale and nature of the Rocky Flats closure likely required large, specialized contractors.

Oversight & Accountability

The Department of Energy (DOE) is the contracting agency. Oversight would typically involve monitoring contract performance, cost, and adherence to environmental regulations. The lack of competition necessitates heightened scrutiny.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

facilities-support-services, department-of-energy, co, definitive-contract, billion-dollar

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Energy awarded $4.16 billion to KAISER-HILL COMPANY, LLC. ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KAISER-HILL COMPANY, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.16 billion.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-01-15. End: 2006-12-15.

What specific factors justified the 'not available for competition' determination for this large contract?

The justification for a sole-source or limited-competition award typically requires a detailed explanation from the agency, citing unique capabilities, urgent needs, or lack of qualified sources. Without this documentation, it's impossible to assess the validity of the non-competitive decision and whether alternatives were truly unavailable.

Were there any mechanisms in place to ensure cost control despite the lack of competition?

Cost-plus incentive fee contracts aim to control costs by linking contractor profit to performance metrics, including cost targets. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is diminished without a competitive baseline. Robust government oversight and auditing would be crucial to manage costs effectively in such a scenario.

What was the final cost compared to the initial estimates, and how did performance metrics influence the final payment?

Detailed final cost data and performance outcomes are not provided. Analyzing the final expenditure against initial projections and the impact of incentive fee structures on the contractor's profit would reveal the true cost-effectiveness and value delivered by Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation ServicesFacilities Support ServicesFacilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITYOPERATE RESTORATION ACTIVITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Contractor Details

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,156,910,383

Exercised Options: $4,156,910,383

Current Obligation: $4,156,910,383

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline

Start Date: 2000-01-15

Current End Date: 2006-12-15

Potential End Date: 2006-12-15 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2016-09-29

Other Department of Energy Contracts

View all Department of Energy contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending