GSA awards $39.7M environmental consulting contract to Versar, Inc. over 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,701,344 ($39.7M)

Contractor: Versar, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2016-09-15

End Date: 2021-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,780 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 88TH OPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: SPARTA, MONROE County, WISCONSIN, 54656

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $39.7 million to VERSAR, INC. for work described as: 88TH OPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in environmental services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Firm fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty for the government. 4. Contract duration of nearly 5 years indicates a long-term need for services. 5. Environmental consulting services are crucial for regulatory compliance and sustainability. 6. The award to Versar, Inc. positions them as a key provider in this sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $39.7 million over approximately five years averages to about $7.94 million annually. Without specific benchmarks for environmental consulting services of this scope and duration, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government secured predictable costs. Further analysis would require comparing this contract's unit rates or project outcomes to similar engagements by other agencies or within the private sector.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award. While more than one bidder participated, a higher number of bids would typically indicate stronger price discovery and potentially more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process is generally favorable to taxpayers as it allows for a wider pool of potential contractors, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive bids and thus potentially lower prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring environmental consulting services for compliance and management. Services delivered likely include environmental assessments, impact studies, remediation planning, and regulatory support. The contract's geographic scope is not explicitly defined but likely supports federal operations nationwide. The contract supports a workforce of environmental consultants and related technical staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly due to long duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical environmental services over an extended period.
Ensuring consistent quality of service delivery across the contract term.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget predictability.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Long-term contract allows for continuity of essential environmental services.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting services form a significant segment of the professional services market, driven by regulatory requirements, sustainability initiatives, and infrastructure development. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale environmental consulting contracts awarded by federal agencies, such as the EPA, Department of Defense, or Department of the Interior, to gauge market rates and typical contract sizes.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a small business set-aside. The prime contractor, Versar, Inc., would be responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) through its Federal Acquisition Service. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Environmental Planning
Environmental Compliance Auditing
Natural Resource Management Consulting

Risk Flags

Contract duration may lead to potential for cost escalation if not managed.
Scope definition critical for firm fixed-price success in environmental services.
Ensuring consistent quality over a multi-year engagement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $39.7 million to VERSAR, INC.. 88TH OPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VERSAR, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-09-15. End: 2021-07-31.

What is Versar, Inc.'s track record with federal environmental consulting contracts?

Versar, Inc. has a history of performing environmental consulting services for various federal agencies. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, including contract values, durations, and any reported performance issues or accolades, would provide insight into their capabilities and reliability. A review of their contract history would reveal if they have successfully managed large-scale, long-term environmental projects and met performance expectations. This includes examining past performance evaluations and any debriefings from previous solicitations where they may have been a bidder or awardee. Understanding their experience with specific types of environmental services (e.g., hazardous waste management, environmental impact assessments) is also crucial.

How does the $39.7 million contract value compare to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by GSA or other agencies?

To benchmark the $39.7 million contract value, one would need to compare it against similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by GSA or other federal agencies over comparable timeframes (approximately five years). Key comparison points include the scope of services, the specific environmental disciplines covered, and the geographic reach. For instance, contracts for large-scale environmental impact statements, comprehensive site assessments, or extensive remediation planning could be used as comparators. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this value is high, low, or average. However, $39.7 million over five years suggests a substantial engagement, likely involving complex or widespread environmental support.

What are the primary risks associated with a five-year firm fixed-price environmental consulting contract?

A primary risk with a five-year firm fixed-price environmental consulting contract is the potential for unforeseen changes in regulatory requirements or environmental conditions that could significantly increase the contractor's costs beyond the fixed price. If the scope of work is not precisely defined, there's a risk of scope creep, where the government requests additional services not originally anticipated, potentially leading to disputes or cost overruns if not managed through contract modifications. Another risk is the contractor's ability to maintain consistent quality and expertise over the long duration, especially if key personnel depart. For the government, the risk is paying a fixed price that may become uncompetitive if market rates decrease significantly over the contract period.

How effective are firm fixed-price contracts in ensuring value for money in environmental consulting services?

Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally considered effective in ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood and manageable. For environmental consulting, where unforeseen issues can arise, the effectiveness of FFP depends heavily on the thoroughness of the initial SOW and the contractor's ability to absorb minor fluctuations. FFP shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to be efficient and control costs. This can lead to better value for the government if the contractor successfully manages the project within the fixed price. However, if the scope is poorly defined or significant unforeseen challenges emerge, the contractor may cut corners on quality to maintain profitability, or the government may end up paying a premium if the initial price was set high to account for perceived risks.

What is the typical annual spending for environmental consulting services across the federal government?

Annual federal spending on environmental consulting services can fluctuate significantly based on agency priorities, legislative mandates, and infrastructure projects. While a precise aggregate figure is difficult to provide without a comprehensive analysis of all federal contracts, it is generally understood to be in the billions of dollars annually. Agencies like the Department of Defense, EPA, Department of Energy, and GSA are major spenders in this area. This contract, at approximately $7.94 million per year, represents a significant but not necessarily outlier-level expenditure within the broader federal context for environmental consulting.

What does the 'Environmental Consulting Services' NAICS code (541620) encompass, and how does this contract align?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541620, 'Environmental Consulting Services,' encompasses establishments primarily engaged in providing expertise in the field of environmental science and engineering. This includes activities such as environmental impact assessment, air and water pollution control, waste management, and environmental remediation consulting. This contract aligns directly with this code, as it specifies 'Environmental Consulting Services,' indicating that Versar, Inc. will be providing professional advice and services related to environmental matters for the General Services Administration.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: ID04150091

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Kingswood Capital Management, LLC (UEI: 080326889)

Address: 6850 VERSAR CTR STE 201, SPRINGFIELD, VA, 22151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $40,410,481

Exercised Options: $39,762,344

Current Obligation: $39,701,344

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00F0007L

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline