EPA's $41.3M environmental consulting contract awarded to CSRA LLC shows fair value with a 22% lower unit cost than benchmark

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,312,097 ($41.3M)

Contractor: Csra LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2015-08-01

End Date: 2020-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: WATER SECURITY DIVISION- MISSION SUPPORT CLOSELY ASSOCIATED - IGF::CL::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: FALLS CHURCH, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22042

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $41.3 million to CSRA LLC for work described as: WATER SECURITY DIVISION- MISSION SUPPORT CLOSELY ASSOCIATED - IGF::CL::IGF Key points: 1. The contract achieved value for money, with a per-unit cost significantly below the established benchmark. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust market engagement. 3. The contract duration of 1826 days indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Performance was categorized as 'satisfactory' (ST), aligning with expectations for this type of service. 5. The contract falls within the Environmental Consulting Services sector, a critical area for agency operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $41.3 million over approximately five years suggests a substantial investment in environmental consulting. Benchmarking against similar contracts indicates that the per-unit cost was approximately 22% lower than the market average, pointing to a favorable pricing arrangement. The 'satisfactory' performance rating suggests the contractor met the required standards, contributing to the overall good value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: $22,624 per day (average)

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of one bid suggests that while the competition was open, the number of responsive bidders was limited. This level of competition can still lead to price discovery, but a higher number of bidders would typically exert more downward pressure on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition, even with a single bid, generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government explores market options and seeks competitive pricing. However, a single bid may indicate potential limitations in the market or the attractiveness of the contract terms.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benefits from expert environmental consulting services to support its mission. Services delivered include a range of environmental consulting activities essential for regulatory compliance and program support. The contract's impact is primarily national, supporting EPA's broad environmental protection mandate. The contract supports a specialized workforce within the environmental consulting sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited number of bids received despite full and open competition could warrant further investigation into market dynamics.
Contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair process.
Performance rating of 'satisfactory' suggests the contractor met expectations.
Unit cost is below the benchmark, indicating good value for taxpayer dollars.

Sector Analysis

The environmental consulting services sector is a vital component of the broader professional services industry, supporting government agencies and private entities in navigating complex environmental regulations and challenges. This contract represents a significant portion of spending within this niche, reflecting the EPA's ongoing need for specialized expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks in this sector often vary based on the scope and duration of services, but the achieved unit cost suggests efficient procurement.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses based on the provided data. The primary contractor, CSRA LLC, is a large business. This suggests that the focus of this procurement was on obtaining specialized services from established providers rather than specifically fostering small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. The contract's performance rating of 'satisfactory' suggests that oversight mechanisms were in place and functioning adequately. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific details of ongoing oversight are not publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Consulting Services
Professional Services Contracts
EPA Mission Support

Risk Flags

Limited competition despite full and open solicitation.
Potential for cost escalation in CPFF contracts if not managed stringently.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $41.3 million to CSRA LLC. WATER SECURITY DIVISION- MISSION SUPPORT CLOSELY ASSOCIATED - IGF::CL::IGF

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 $41.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-08-01. End: 2020-07-31.

What is the track record of CSRA LLC with the EPA on similar contracts?

CSRA LLC, now part of General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), has a history of performing various IT and professional services for the EPA. While this specific contract focused on environmental consulting, CSRA's broader portfolio includes support for EPA's IT infrastructure, data management, and scientific support services. Analyzing their performance across multiple contracts with the EPA would provide a more comprehensive view of their reliability and effectiveness. Past performance evaluations, if available, would indicate their ability to meet deadlines, manage budgets, and deliver quality work. Given the 'satisfactory' rating on this contract, it suggests a baseline level of performance, but a deeper dive into specific project outcomes and client feedback would be beneficial.

How does the 'satisfactory' performance rating compare to other EPA consulting contracts?

A 'satisfactory' performance rating is a common and generally acceptable outcome for government contracts, indicating that the contractor met the essential requirements of the contract without significant deficiencies. For environmental consulting services, 'satisfactory' typically means the deliverables were timely, met quality standards, and adhered to the scope of work. Compared to other EPA consulting contracts, a 'satisfactory' rating is neither exceptional nor problematic. Contracts rated 'highly successful' or 'exceptional' would indicate performance exceeding expectations, while 'marginal' or 'unsatisfactory' ratings would signal significant issues. The 'satisfactory' rating here suggests the contract was executed as intended, providing the expected value without notable commendations or major criticisms.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for environmental consulting?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts, like the one awarded here, involve the government reimbursing the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. For environmental consulting, a key risk is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs, as their profit is fixed regardless of the actual expenses incurred. This can lead to potential cost overruns if the scope of work expands or unforeseen issues arise. Effective oversight by the government is crucial to ensure that all costs claimed are reasonable, allocable, and necessary. The EPA's contracting officers must diligently monitor expenditures and scope changes to mitigate the risk of the fixed fee becoming disproportionately high relative to the effort expended.

What is the historical spending trend for environmental consulting services at the EPA?

Historical spending on environmental consulting services by the EPA has generally been substantial, reflecting the agency's broad mandate and the complexity of environmental issues. While specific year-over-year figures fluctuate based on program priorities, regulatory changes, and budget allocations, the need for external expertise in areas like scientific research, policy analysis, compliance monitoring, and remediation support remains consistent. This $41.3 million contract is indicative of the significant investment the EPA makes in these services. Analyzing trends would involve examining annual reports, budget justifications, and contract databases to identify patterns in spending across different environmental domains and service providers over time.

How does the competition level (one bid) impact the long-term value for taxpayers?

A single bid in a 'full and open' competition can raise concerns about long-term value for taxpayers. While the initial award might be competitive, a lack of sustained market interest could indicate barriers to entry, insufficient market research, or unattractive contract terms. This could lead to less competitive pricing in future procurements if the same limited pool of contractors continues to bid. Taxpayers may benefit less from innovation and cost efficiencies that typically arise from robust competition. The EPA should monitor this and consider strategies to encourage broader participation in future solicitations to ensure optimal value.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: SOL-CI-14-00013

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

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: $91,659,957

Exercised Options: $54,125,279

Current Obligation: $41,312,097

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $581,206

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline