DOJ's $80.6M energy performance contract with Ameresco Inc. delivered engineering services across multiple federal facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $80,651,274 ($80.7M)

Contractor: Ameresco Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2016-07-13

End Date: 2020-04-02

Contract Duration: 1,359 days

Daily Burn Rate: $59.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BUTNER ESPC

Place of Performance

Location: BUTNER, GRANVILLE County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27509

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $80.7 million to AMERESCO INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BUTNER ESPC Key points: 1. The contract aimed to improve energy efficiency and reduce operational costs for federal facilities. 2. Ameresco Inc. was awarded this contract, indicating a competitive selection process. 3. The contract duration of 1359 days suggests a significant project scope. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure likely provided cost certainty for the government. 5. Performance was tracked under the Federal Prison System, highlighting a focus on correctional facility infrastructure. 6. The contract's success hinges on measurable energy savings and facility improvements.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking this specific energy performance contract's value is challenging without detailed project outcomes and energy savings data. However, Ameresco is a recognized leader in the energy services sector, often delivering significant cost reductions for clients. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract suggests a negotiated price based on anticipated savings and project scope, which can be a good indicator of value if savings are realized.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. This level of competition typically drives down prices and encourages innovation as contractors vie for the award. The presence of 5 bids indicates a healthy competitive environment for this type of engineering service.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring the government secures the best possible price and service through a robust bidding process.

Public Impact

Federal correctional facilities within the Bureau of Prisons network benefited from improved energy efficiency and reduced utility costs. Services delivered included engineering solutions aimed at optimizing energy consumption and infrastructure. The geographic impact likely extended across multiple facilities managed by the Federal Prison System. The project supported the federal government's broader sustainability and energy reduction goals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if energy savings projections are not met.
Dependence on contractor's expertise for accurate energy audits and implementation.
Long-term maintenance and operational costs of implemented energy efficiency measures.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Ameresco Inc. is a reputable firm in the energy services industry.
Focus on energy efficiency aligns with federal sustainability mandates.

Sector Analysis

Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) are a key mechanism for federal agencies to improve energy efficiency and reduce utility costs without upfront capital investment. These contracts leverage private sector expertise and financing to implement energy conservation measures. The market for EPCs is substantial, with numerous established Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) competing for government and commercial projects. This contract fits within the broader trend of federal agencies seeking sustainable and cost-effective facility management solutions.

Small Business Impact

This contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions. While the prime contractor is Ameresco Inc., there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Bureau of Prisons contracting officers and program managers. The firm-fixed-price nature provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver the agreed-upon services within budget. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, though specific oversight details are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)
Federal Buildings Fund
Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Risk Flags

Potential for savings not being fully realized
Contractor performance risk
Technical implementation challenges

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $80.7 million to AMERESCO INC. IGF::OT::IGF BUTNER ESPC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERESCO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Federal Prison System / Bureau of Prisons).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $80.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-07-13. End: 2020-04-02.

What were the specific energy conservation measures implemented under this contract, and what were the projected vs. actual energy savings?

The provided data does not detail the specific energy conservation measures (ECMs) implemented. Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) typically involve a range of upgrades such as HVAC system improvements, lighting retrofits, building envelope enhancements, and renewable energy installations. To assess the contract's success, a review of the contractor's final reports and the agency's energy usage data post-implementation would be necessary to compare projected savings against actual achieved savings. Without this, the true value-for-money is difficult to quantify.

How does the per-unit cost of engineering services compare to similar contracts or market rates for energy efficiency projects?

Determining a precise 'per-unit cost' for engineering services within this broad energy performance contract is complex, as it encompasses various assessments, designs, and potentially project management. Benchmarking would require comparing the total engineering fee against the total contract value or against the scope of work (e.g., square footage of facilities serviced, number of ECMs). Given the firm-fixed-price nature and full and open competition, the negotiated price is presumed to be competitive. However, without specific cost breakdowns and comparable project data, a definitive per-unit cost comparison is not feasible from the provided summary.

What is Ameresco Inc.'s track record with similar federal energy performance contracts, and have they consistently met savings guarantees?

Ameresco Inc. is a well-established Energy Service Company (ESCO) with a significant portfolio of federal and commercial energy performance contracts. They have a history of delivering a wide range of energy efficiency and infrastructure upgrade projects. While specific performance metrics for all their contracts are not publicly detailed in this summary, their continued success in securing federal contracts suggests a generally positive track record. Agencies often track contractor performance through past performance evaluations, which inform future award decisions. Reviewing these evaluations or agency-specific performance reports would provide deeper insight into their consistency in meeting savings guarantees.

What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

Potential risks for energy performance contracts often include underestimation of energy savings, unforeseen technical challenges during implementation, contractor performance issues, and changes in facility usage. For this contract, awarded under full and open competition, the solicitation process likely included detailed performance requirements and evaluation criteria to mitigate these risks. The firm-fixed-price structure helps mitigate financial risks for the government by capping costs. Mitigation strategies may have also involved performance bonds, clear milestones, and regular progress reviews to ensure the contractor remained on track and accountable for delivering the agreed-upon energy savings and project outcomes.

How does this contract's total value and duration compare to other federal energy performance contracts awarded around the same period?

The $80.6 million value and 1359-day (approx. 3.7 years) duration place this contract as a substantial, medium-to-large scale energy performance contract. Federal EPCs can range from a few million dollars for smaller facility upgrades to hundreds of millions for large campus-wide modernizations. Contracts of this size and duration are typical for comprehensive energy efficiency overhauls across multiple federal buildings or a large complex. Comparing it to other ESPCs would involve looking at the scope of work (e.g., number of buildings, types of ECMs) and the specific agency's needs, as well as prevailing market rates and technological advancements at the time of award.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Energy R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 111 SPEEN ST STE 410, FRAMINGHAM, MA, 01701

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $80,651,274

Exercised Options: $80,651,274

Current Obligation: $80,651,274

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DEAM3609GO29029

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline