FEMA obligated $31.4M for emergency management support during Hurricane Harvey, a 14-day response effort

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,413,200 ($31.4M)

Contractor: American Medical Response, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2017-08-25

End Date: 2017-09-08

Contract Duration: 14 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.2M/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO HURRICANE HARVEY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

Place of Performance

Location: SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78201

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $31.4 million to AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO HURRICANE HARVEY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS Key points: 1. The contract provided critical emergency management support during a major disaster, highlighting the need for rapid response capabilities. 2. While the contract duration was short, the obligated amount suggests significant resource deployment for immediate relief. 3. The use of Time and Materials pricing warrants scrutiny to ensure efficient use of funds for the services rendered. 4. The rapid deployment and short duration indicate a reactive, rather than proactive, spending pattern tied to disaster events. 5. This contract falls within the Ambulance Services NAICS code, suggesting a focus on medical and patient transport logistics. 6. The relatively high obligated amount for a 14-day period warrants a detailed review of the services provided and their necessity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The obligated amount of $31.4 million for a 14-day period is substantial, particularly given the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure. Without detailed service logs and justification for hours worked and materials used, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. Compared to typical emergency response contracts of similar duration, this figure appears high, suggesting a need for rigorous oversight to ensure costs were reasonable and directly related to the emergency. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which should theoretically drive competitive pricing, but the T&M nature can obscure true cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. However, the specific details of the bidding process, such as the number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria, are not provided. Full and open competition is generally expected to yield the best pricing and value for the government. The fact that this was a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle (implied by the structure, though not explicitly stated in the provided data) might influence the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition suggests that taxpayers benefited from a potentially more competitive pricing environment, as multiple companies vied for the contract. This mechanism aims to prevent inflated costs that might arise from sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Public Impact

Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey received critical emergency management support, including potential medical transport and logistical assistance. The services delivered likely focused on immediate response needs, such as setting up temporary facilities, coordinating aid distribution, and providing essential services. The geographic impact was concentrated in Texas, specifically areas devastated by Hurricane Harvey. The contract supported the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster response operations, bolstering their capacity to manage large-scale emergencies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored, as it incentivizes longer durations and higher labor hours.
The rapid obligation of a significant sum ($31.4M) for a short-duration contract requires detailed justification to ensure funds were used efficiently and effectively for the stated emergency.
Lack of specific details on the services rendered makes it challenging to assess the true value for money and compare it against industry standards for emergency response.
The contract was awarded as a delivery order, which may indicate it was part of a pre-existing contract vehicle; understanding the original competition for that vehicle is important.
The short performance period (14 days) coupled with a high dollar amount necessitates a thorough review of the necessity and scope of services provided.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust process to select the most capable vendor.
The contract addressed a critical need for emergency management support during a major natural disaster (Hurricane Harvey).
The rapid deployment of resources demonstrates the government's ability to respond quickly to urgent situations.
The contract falls under the Ambulance Services NAICS code, indicating a focus on essential services potentially related to patient care and transport during the crisis.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader emergency response and disaster management sector, which is often characterized by rapid, high-value engagements triggered by unforeseen events. The NAICS code 621910 (Ambulance Services) suggests a focus on medical logistics and patient transport during the crisis. Spending in this sector can be highly variable, with significant spikes during disaster periods. Benchmarking requires comparison to other disaster relief contracts, which are typically awarded under urgent circumstances and may have different cost structures than routine service contracts.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific focus or requirement for this contract. As it was awarded under full and open competition, there's no explicit small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime contractor's policies and the nature of the services required, which are not detailed here. The primary goal was likely rapid disaster response, potentially favoring larger, established providers with immediate capacity.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the relevant program offices within FEMA. Given the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing, rigorous oversight would be crucial to monitor labor hours, material costs, and ensure that all expenditures were necessary and reasonable for the emergency response. Transparency is typically enhanced through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed operational oversight rests with the contracting officer and agency officials.

Related Government Programs

Hurricane Harvey Disaster Relief Efforts
FEMA Emergency Management Services
Disaster Response Contracts
Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Pricing
High Obligated Amount for Short Duration
Lack of Detailed Service Breakdown

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $31.4 million to AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO HURRICANE HARVEY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-08-25. End: 2017-09-08.

What specific services were provided under this contract, and how were they justified given the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO HURRICANE HARVEY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS' and falls under NAICS code 621910 (Ambulance Services). Given the T&M pricing, the services likely included, but were not limited to, patient transportation, medical support, logistical coordination, and potentially the deployment of personnel and equipment to affected areas. Justification for T&M pricing in disaster scenarios often stems from the unpredictable nature of needs, making it difficult to define a fixed scope upfront. However, rigorous oversight is required to validate the necessity of hours worked, the reasonableness of labor rates, and the cost of any materials utilized. Without detailed service delivery reports and timesheets, a precise breakdown and justification remain elusive based solely on the provided summary data.

How does the obligated amount of $31.4 million for a 14-day contract compare to similar emergency response contracts awarded by FEMA?

Obligating $31.4 million for a 14-day emergency response contract is a substantial amount, averaging over $2.2 million per day. Comparing this to similar contracts requires access to a broader dataset of FEMA disaster response awards. However, generally, such high daily obligations during acute disaster phases often reflect the mobilization of significant resources, including personnel, vehicles, medical supplies, and logistical support infrastructure. Contracts for large-scale events like hurricanes often involve surge capacity requirements that command premium pricing due to the urgency and scale. While potentially justifiable given the circumstances of Hurricane Harvey, the figure warrants scrutiny against benchmarks for comparable rapid-response, high-intensity disaster support operations to ensure cost-effectiveness.

What were the key risks associated with this Time and Materials (T&M) contract, and how were they mitigated?

The primary risk with a T&M contract, especially in a high-pressure disaster response, is the potential for cost escalation and inefficient resource utilization. Without a fixed scope or ceiling, there's a risk that costs could exceed initial estimates if not managed diligently. Mitigation strategies typically involve strong contract oversight, including detailed monitoring of labor hours, verification of materials used, and regular reporting requirements. The contracting officer plays a crucial role in ensuring that all charges are reasonable, allocable, and necessary for the contract's purpose. For this specific contract, the short duration (14 days) might have inherently limited the potential for runaway costs, but the high daily rate underscores the need for robust administrative oversight to ensure value for taxpayer money.

What was the track record of the contractor, American Medical Response, Inc., in handling similar large-scale emergency response contracts prior to Hurricane Harvey?

American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR) is a major provider of emergency medical services and disaster response in the United States. Prior to Hurricane Harvey in 2017, AMR had a significant history of responding to large-scale emergencies, including natural disasters and mass casualty incidents. They often work under contracts with federal, state, and local governments, as well as private entities, to provide ambulance services, patient transport, and medical support during crises. Their experience likely included participation in numerous disaster relief operations, positioning them as a capable vendor for a contract of this nature. Assessing their specific performance on prior FEMA contracts or similar federal disaster responses would provide further context on their capabilities and cost-effectiveness.

How did the competition level (full and open) influence the pricing and efficiency of the services provided during this critical response period?

Awarding the contract under 'full and open competition' theoretically means that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to submit proposals, leading to a more competitive bidding process. This mechanism is designed to drive down prices and encourage efficiency as vendors vie for the contract. In the context of a critical disaster response like Hurricane Harvey, the urgency might influence how vendors price their bids, potentially factoring in mobilization costs and immediate availability. While competition is generally beneficial for price discovery, the effectiveness in this specific case depends on the number of bidders, the evaluation criteria used, and whether the urgency allowed for extensive negotiation. The Time and Materials structure, however, can somewhat offset the benefits of upfront price competition by shifting cost certainty to the government post-award.

What historical spending patterns exist for emergency management support services related to major hurricanes, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Spending on emergency management support services during major hurricanes typically follows a pattern of significant, short-term obligations tied directly to the disaster event. Federal agencies like FEMA activate pre-existing contract vehicles or award new contracts rapidly to secure necessary resources. Historical data shows that costs can escalate quickly due to the need for immediate deployment of personnel, equipment, and logistical support, often involving premium rates for surge capacity. This $31.4 million contract for Hurricane Harvey fits within this trend of substantial federal spending during major disasters. The specific amount reflects the scale and duration of the response required, and it is comparable to obligations seen in other large-scale hurricane relief efforts, though precise comparisons depend on the specific services rendered and the duration of the response.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Health Care and Social Assistance › Other Ambulatory Health Care Services › Ambulance Services

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICES › OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: HSFE70-17-R-0008

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rural/Metro Fire Dept., Inc. (UEI: 832700053)

Address: 6363 S FIDDLERS GREEN CIR 14TH FL, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, 80111

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,413,200

Exercised Options: $31,413,200

Current Obligation: $31,413,200

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSFE7017D0014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline