NSF's $255.6M Arctic Research Support Contract Awarded to CH2M Facility Support Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $255,625,698 ($255.6M)

Contractor: CH2M Facility Support Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: National Science Foundation

Start Date: 2011-09-28

End Date: 2020-12-17

Contract Duration: 3,368 days

Daily Burn Rate: $75.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ARCTIC RESEARCH SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Science Foundation obligated $255.6 million to CH2M FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC for work described as: ARCTIC RESEARCH SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents significant investment in polar logistics. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding environment for specialized services. 3. Contract duration of nearly 9 years indicates long-term need and potential for contractor lock-in. 4. Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 5. Facilities support services are critical for maintaining operational capacity in remote research locations. 6. The award to a single contractor for an extended period warrants scrutiny of ongoing value. 7. Geographic focus on the Arctic presents unique logistical and operational challenges.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $255.6 million over approximately 9 years averages to about $28.4 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale logistics and facilities support contracts for remote research operations is challenging due to the unique nature of Arctic support. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor without excessive profit margins. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparable contract data, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the extended duration and CPFF structure suggest a need for careful financial management.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of two bidders, as suggested by the 'no' field, implies a degree of competition, though the specifics of the bidding process and the number of proposals received are not detailed. A competitive process is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives a fair market price. However, the long-term nature of the contract and the specialized requirements for Arctic support might limit the pool of qualified bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down costs through market forces. Even with only two bidders, the competitive process likely resulted in a more favorable price than a sole-source award.

Public Impact

Researchers conducting studies in the Arctic region benefit from reliable logistical and facility support. The National Science Foundation (NSF) ensures operational continuity for its polar research programs. The contract supports critical infrastructure maintenance and operations in remote and challenging environments. Workforce implications include employment for personnel involved in logistics, maintenance, and support services in the Arctic. Geographic impact is concentrated in polar regions, enabling scientific exploration and data collection.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Long contract duration (nearly 9 years) may reduce flexibility and increase risk of contractor complacency.
Specialized nature of Arctic support could limit competition in future procurements.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical infrastructure in remote locations poses operational risk.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair market process.
Contract provides essential support for vital scientific research in a challenging environment.
Long-term contract provides stability for research operations and contractor planning.
The contractor has a significant role in enabling critical national science objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, which is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. For the National Science Foundation's Arctic research mission, these services are highly specialized, involving logistics, maintenance, and operational support in extreme environmental conditions. The market for such specialized Arctic support services is relatively niche, with a limited number of companies possessing the requisite expertise and infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique operational context, but large-scale facilities and logistics contracts can run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). Given the scale and specialized nature of Arctic research support and logistics, it is unlikely that small businesses would be the primary awardees for the prime contract. However, the prime contractor, CH2M Facility Support Services, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specific services. Analysis of subcontracting plans would be necessary to determine the extent of small business participation and its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Science Foundation (NSF). As a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to monitor expenditures and ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable to the contract. The NSF's contract officers and technical representatives would be responsible for performance monitoring, ensuring deliverables are met, and managing the contractor relationship. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements and potentially through NSF's Inspector General's office, which would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Arctic Research Program
Polar Logistics Support
Facilities Management Contracts
Research Infrastructure Support
Logistics Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may limit flexibility.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires diligent oversight.
Specialized nature of Arctic support could limit future competition.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical remote operations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Science Foundation awarded $255.6 million to CH2M FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC. ARCTIC RESEARCH SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CH2M FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $255.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-28. End: 2020-12-17.

What is the track record of CH2M Facility Support Services, LLC with the federal government, particularly in large-scale logistics and facilities support contracts?

CH2M Facility Support Services, LLC, and its predecessors/affiliates, have a substantial history of performing large federal contracts, particularly in areas of facility operations, maintenance, and logistics. Their experience often spans complex environments, including research facilities and government installations. For instance, they have been involved in significant contracts with agencies like the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. Their track record generally indicates a capacity to manage large, complex projects. However, a detailed review of past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, or past performance issues would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their suitability and reliability for this specific Arctic support contract.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to other federal investments in Arctic research infrastructure and logistics?

The average annual cost of this contract is approximately $28.4 million ($255.6 million / 9 years). Comparing this directly to other federal investments in Arctic research infrastructure and logistics is complex, as spending is distributed across various agencies and contract types. The NSF's overall budget for polar programs includes research grants, equipment, and operational support, not just this single contract. Other agencies like the Department of Defense (e.g., U.S. Arctic Strategy) and the Department of Homeland Security also invest in Arctic capabilities, but often through different mechanisms (e.g., icebreakers, strategic infrastructure). This contract appears to be a significant, dedicated funding stream for the operational backbone of NSF's Arctic research presence, suggesting it represents a substantial portion of the agency's direct investment in enabling research infrastructure.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for Arctic support services, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. If costs escalate beyond initial projections, the government pays more, while the contractor's profit margin (the fixed fee) remains constant. For Arctic support, risks are amplified by the inherent uncertainties of operating in extreme environments: weather delays, equipment failures, and logistical challenges can all drive up costs. Mitigation strategies include robust government oversight of all incurred costs, detailed performance work statements that clearly define services and deliverables, stringent auditing of expenses, and clear contract clauses that define allowable costs and profit limitations. The NSF's contract administration team plays a critical role in monitoring expenditures and ensuring compliance.

What is the historical spending trend for Arctic research support and logistics services by the federal government over the past decade?

Historical spending on Arctic research support and logistics by the federal government has generally shown an increasing trend over the past decade, driven by growing geopolitical and scientific interest in the region. While specific aggregate data for 'Arctic research support and logistics' is not readily available as a distinct category, overall federal investment in Arctic-related activities has risen. Agencies like NSF, NOAA, DOD, and DHS have all increased their focus and funding for Arctic operations, research, and domain awareness. This NSF contract, spanning from 2011 to 2020, represents a significant, consistent investment within that broader trend. Fluctuations in specific contract awards and program funding can occur year-to-year based on budget appropriations and strategic priorities.

How does the duration of this contract (nearly 9 years) impact the government's ability to adapt to changing Arctic conditions or technological advancements?

A contract duration of nearly nine years (3368 days) provides significant stability for essential Arctic support operations, allowing the contractor to make necessary investments in equipment and personnel. However, it also presents a challenge for adaptability. The Arctic is a rapidly changing environment, both climatically and strategically. Furthermore, technology in logistics and research support evolves quickly. A long-term contract may limit the government's ability to incorporate new, more efficient, or cost-effective technologies or approaches during its term without costly modifications or change orders. It also reduces the opportunity to re-evaluate requirements and potentially seek more innovative solutions through new competitive procurements if needs or technologies shift substantially.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support 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: DACS11P2100

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)

Address: 9191 SOUTH JAMAICA ST, ENGLEWOOD, CO, 80112

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $255,625,698

Exercised Options: $255,625,698

Current Obligation: $255,625,698

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 707

Total Subaward Amount: $171,534,212

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline