EPA's $12.8M facilities support contract awarded to Chenega Global Services shows limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,861,291 ($12.9M)

Contractor: Chenega Global Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2009-01-01

End Date: 2014-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,006 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: EDISON, MIDDLESEX County, NEW JERSEY, 08837, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $12.9 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL SERVICES LLC for work described as: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded under a 'not available for competition' basis, raising questions about market exploration. 2. Long contract duration (over 5 years) may limit opportunities for competitive re-evaluation. 3. Fixed-price contract type can incentivize cost control but may not fully capture evolving service needs. 4. Services provided are essential for facility operations, indicating a critical need for reliable vendor. 5. Geographic focus on New Jersey suggests a localized service requirement. 6. Absence of small business set-aside indicates potential missed opportunities for smaller enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the 'not available for competition' award type and the lack of detailed service breakdowns. The fixed-price nature suggests an attempt at cost control, but without comparable contracts or market rates for similar facilities support services in the New Jersey region, a definitive value assessment is difficult. The total value of $12.8 million over its term indicates a significant investment in maintaining EPA facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a 'not available for competition' basis, meaning the Environmental Protection Agency did not conduct a broad solicitation. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement. The limited competition suggests that potential cost savings and service innovations that could arise from a competitive bidding process may have been forgone.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure to drive down prices. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the government secured the best possible value for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Environmental Protection Agency's facilities in New Jersey, ensuring their operational integrity. Essential services such as maintenance, repair, and operational support for government buildings are delivered. The geographic impact is concentrated within the state of New Jersey, supporting federal operations in that region. The contract supports a workforce involved in facility management and maintenance, contributing to local employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and lack of innovation.
The 'not available for competition' justification needs thorough review to ensure necessity.
Long-term contract duration might reduce flexibility and responsiveness to changing needs.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract can provide cost certainty for the agency.
Award to a single vendor may ensure continuity of essential services.
Focus on facilities support is critical for agency operations.

Sector Analysis

Facilities support services fall under the broader commercial real estate and professional services sector. This contract represents a significant portion of spending for operational maintenance of government infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other federal agencies' contracts for similar facility management services, particularly those awarded through competitive processes, to gauge price efficiency.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, may have been limited or non-existent. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the full impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's performance work statement and terms. Transparency regarding the 'not available for competition' justification and any subsequent performance reviews would be key to assessing oversight effectiveness. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Government Building Operations Support
Environmental Protection Agency Operations

Risk Flags

Limited competition award
Lack of transparency in justification for sole-source award
Potential for cost inefficiencies due to lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $12.9 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL SERVICES LLC. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHENEGA GLOBAL SERVICES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-01-01. End: 2014-06-30.

What specific services are included under 'Facilities Support Services' for the EPA in New Jersey?

While the provided data abbreviates the service as 'Facilities Support Services,' a comprehensive understanding would require reviewing the original contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). Typically, these services encompass a wide range of activities necessary for the upkeep and operation of government facilities. This can include routine maintenance (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), janitorial services, groundskeeping, pest control, minor repairs, security system maintenance, and potentially energy management. The specific scope would detail the exact responsibilities of Chenega Global Services LLC in ensuring the EPA's New Jersey facilities are functional, safe, and compliant with relevant regulations.

Why was this contract awarded on a 'not available for competition' basis, and what are the implications?

A 'not available for competition' (NAC) award typically signifies that the agency determined only one source was reasonably available or capable of fulfilling the requirement. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent needs where no other vendor could respond in time, or specific government property requirements. The implication for taxpayers is a potential lack of price competition, which can lead to higher costs than if multiple vendors had bid. It also reduces the agency's exposure to innovative solutions or cost-saving measures that a competitive process might yield. A thorough justification for the NAC status is crucial for ensuring responsible stewardship of public funds.

How does the fixed-price contract type affect cost control and risk for this EPA contract?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, like the one awarded to Chenega Global Services LLC, establishes a ceiling price that the contractor must not exceed. This contract type is generally favored when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. For the EPA, an FFP contract provides cost certainty, as the price is set regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their expenses efficiently. However, if the scope of work changes significantly or unforeseen issues arise, the contractor may seek change orders, potentially increasing the overall cost. The effectiveness of FFP in this context depends on the clarity of the initial requirements and the contractor's ability to perform within the agreed-upon price.

What is the typical duration and value range for similar federal facilities support contracts?

Federal facilities support contracts can vary widely in duration and value depending on the size and complexity of the facilities, the scope of services required, and the agency's strategic planning. Contracts can range from one to five years, often with options for extension. Values can span from hundreds of thousands to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. For a contract valued at approximately $12.8 million over roughly five years, this falls within a moderate range for supporting significant federal facilities. Benchmarking against similar contracts awarded by agencies like GSA or other departments with large real estate portfolios would provide a clearer picture of its relative scale and cost-effectiveness.

What are the potential performance risks associated with a sole-source facilities support contract?

Sole-source contracts, including those awarded on a 'not available for competition' basis, carry inherent performance risks. Without competitive pressure, the incumbent contractor may have less incentive to innovate, improve service quality, or maintain competitive pricing over the contract's life. There's also a risk that the contractor's capabilities might not keep pace with evolving needs or technological advancements. Furthermore, if the contractor experiences financial difficulties or operational issues, the agency has limited alternatives for immediate service continuity without potentially lengthy and costly re-procurement processes. Robust performance monitoring and clear contract management are therefore critical to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: PRR20810089

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Chenega Corporation (UEI: 622692994)

Address: 726 EAST 9TH AVENUE, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99501

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,043,130

Exercised Options: $13,043,130

Current Obligation: $12,861,291

Timeline