EPA awarded CSRA LLC $45.3M for environmental consulting, a contract lasting over 4 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $45,362,159 ($45.4M)

Contractor: Csra LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2010-11-30

End Date: 2015-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,704 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EP-C-10-060

Place of Performance

Location: FALLS CHURCH, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22042

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $45.4 million to CSRA LLC for work described as: EP-C-10-060 Key points: 1. The contract's value of $45.3M over 1704 days suggests a significant investment in environmental consulting services. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are favorable, with 3 bidders participating in a full and open competition. 3. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can introduce cost escalation risks if not managed diligently. 4. Performance context is within environmental consulting, a sector requiring specialized expertise and regulatory knowledge. 5. The contract's duration of over 4 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 6. The award to CSRA LLC, a known entity in government contracting, provides a degree of performance predictability.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award of $45.3M over approximately 4.7 years averages to about $9.6M annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale environmental consulting contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, while common for complex services, warrants scrutiny to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is appropriate for the scope. The absence of a specific per-unit cost makes direct value-for-money assessment difficult, but the competitive nature of the award suggests a reasonable price was likely achieved.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. With three bidders participating, the competition level appears moderate. This suggests that while multiple firms were interested, the market may not be as broad as for more commoditized services. The presence of multiple bidders generally supports price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and encourages a wider range of solutions, potentially leading to better value.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential environmental consulting services. Services likely include technical assistance, regulatory analysis, policy support, and program management related to environmental protection. The geographic impact is likely national, supporting EPA's mission across the United States. The contract supports a workforce skilled in environmental science, engineering, and policy analysis.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The CPFF contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The specific deliverables and performance metrics are not detailed, making it hard to assess performance outcomes.
Long-term contracts can sometimes lead to complacency or reduced innovation if not actively managed.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The contractor, CSRA LLC, has a track record in government contracting, suggesting familiarity with federal requirements.
The contract duration implies a sustained need and potential for stable service delivery.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by specialized expertise, often driven by regulatory requirements and complex problem-solving. The market includes a mix of large, established firms and smaller niche players. The EPA's spending in this area is critical for its mission execution, covering areas like compliance, research, and policy development. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific nature of the consulting services provided.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal for this particular award. However, larger prime contractors like CSRA LLC may engage small businesses as subcontractors on such contracts, depending on their own business strategies and the specific needs of the project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to monitor expenditures against the fixed fee and ensure compliance with cost principles. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements and potentially through public contract databases, although detailed performance reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Consulting Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
EPA Contracts
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage cost risks.
Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders outcome assessment.
Potential for scope creep in long-term consulting contracts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $45.4 million to CSRA LLC. EP-C-10-060

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CSRA LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $45.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-11-30. End: 2015-07-31.

What is CSRA LLC's track record with the EPA and similar environmental consulting contracts?

CSRA LLC, now part of General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), has a significant history of performing IT and professional services for various federal agencies, including the EPA. While specific details on their environmental consulting performance for the EPA under this particular contract (EP-C-10-060) are not publicly detailed in this summary, their broader experience suggests a capacity to handle complex government requirements. Assessing their track record would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or awards, and the successful completion of prior EPA engagements. Their transition into GDIT also means their capabilities and contract history are now integrated within a larger entity, potentially offering broader resources but also requiring an understanding of how that integration impacts service delivery and oversight.

How does the $45.3M award compare to other EPA environmental consulting contracts?

The $45.3M award over approximately 4.7 years represents an average annual value of roughly $9.6M. To compare this effectively, one would need to analyze the EPA's spending portfolio for similar environmental consulting services (NAICS code 541620) over comparable periods. Factors such as the specific scope of work (e.g., regulatory analysis, site remediation support, scientific research), contract type (e.g., FFP, CPFF, T&M), and duration are critical for a meaningful comparison. Without access to a broader dataset of EPA environmental consulting contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this award is high, low, or average. However, $9.6M annually for specialized consulting suggests a substantial and ongoing need for the services provided.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract, especially one valued at $45.3M, is potential cost escalation beyond initial projections, despite the fixed fee component. While the fixed fee provides the contractor with a defined profit margin, the 'cost plus' element means the government bears the risk of actual allowable costs incurred. If the contractor's costs are higher than anticipated due to inefficiencies, unforeseen complexities, or scope creep not properly managed, the total government expenditure can increase significantly. Effective oversight is paramount to scrutinize costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable, and manage the scope of work diligently to prevent uncontrolled cost growth. The fixed fee itself also needs to be benchmarked to ensure it aligns with industry standards for the level of risk and effort involved.

How effective has the EPA been in managing its environmental consulting contracts to ensure value for money?

Assessing the overall effectiveness of the EPA's management of environmental consulting contracts requires a deep dive into performance metrics, cost audits, and program outcomes across numerous contracts. This specific contract (EP-C-10-060) provides limited data for such an assessment. Generally, agencies like the EPA face the challenge of procuring highly specialized services where defining clear, measurable outcomes can be difficult. Success often hinges on robust contract administration, clear performance standards, and proactive risk management. The EPA, like other large federal agencies, utilizes various oversight mechanisms, including Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) and program managers, to monitor performance and costs. However, the effectiveness can vary based on resource allocation, personnel expertise, and the complexity of the services procured.

What are the historical spending patterns for environmental consulting services at the EPA?

Historical spending patterns for environmental consulting services at the EPA reveal a consistent and significant investment in this area, reflecting the agency's core mission. While the specific data for EP-C-10-060 shows $45.3M awarded over roughly 4.7 years, a broader analysis would show that the EPA regularly procures millions, often billions, of dollars in services related to environmental assessment, compliance, research, and remediation. Spending fluctuates based on legislative priorities, emerging environmental issues, and budget allocations. The trend generally indicates a sustained demand for external expertise to support the agency's vast regulatory and operational responsibilities, with spending often concentrated in areas like scientific analysis, engineering support, and policy development.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Environmental Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: PRCI0910342

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $99,714,101

Exercised Options: $58,190,339

Current Obligation: $45,362,159

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 124

Total Subaward Amount: $250,178,768

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline