National Science Foundation awards $7.2M for electric power distribution in Virginia

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,220,485 ($7.2M)

Contractor: Virginia Electric and Power Company

Awarding Agency: National Science Foundation

Start Date: 2017-08-24

End Date: 2024-08-23

Contract Duration: 2,556 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF ALEXANDRIA POWER

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22204

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Science Foundation obligated $7.2 million to VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF ALEXANDRIA POWER Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in essential utility services for a federal agency. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher costs or less favorable terms. 3. Long contract duration (7 years) requires careful monitoring of performance and price adjustments. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor for cost overruns. 5. The contract is a delivery order, indicating it's part of a larger, potentially indefinite-delivery contract. 6. Geographic concentration in Virginia highlights specific operational needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking electric power distribution costs is complex due to varying service levels, infrastructure requirements, and geographic factors. The $7.2 million total award over seven years averages approximately $1 million annually. Without specific details on the scope of services (e.g., capacity, reliability standards, infrastructure upgrades), a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the lack of competition raises concerns about whether the NSF secured the most competitive pricing available in the market.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor was solicited. This typically occurs when a unique capability or circumstance exists, or when it's deemed impractical or uneconomical to compete. The lack of competition means the NSF did not benefit from a bidding process that could drive down prices and encourage innovation from multiple providers. This raises questions about whether alternative, potentially more cost-effective solutions were overlooked.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to offer the best price. It also limits opportunities for other qualified vendors to secure government contracts.

Public Impact

The National Science Foundation facilities in Virginia benefit from reliable electric power distribution. Ensures uninterrupted operations for research and administrative functions. Supports the critical infrastructure necessary for scientific endeavors. The contract impacts the local utility provider in Virginia through sustained revenue and operational planning.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially overlooks more cost-effective solutions.
Long contract duration may not adapt well to rapidly changing energy technologies or market prices.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source procurement.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the agency, assuming the scope is well-defined.
Delivery order structure allows for phased execution and payment.
Contract ensures essential utility services for a federal agency's operations.

Sector Analysis

The electric power distribution sector is a critical utility service, essential for the functioning of all organizations, including federal agencies. This contract falls within the broader utilities and infrastructure services market. Federal agencies often rely on established utility providers, and contracts for such services can range from simple energy supply to complex infrastructure management. Benchmarking is difficult as it depends heavily on the specific infrastructure and service level agreements required by the agency's location and operational needs.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded to VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, a large utility provider. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements associated with this specific award. The nature of utility provision often involves large, established entities, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses unless they are suppliers or specialized service providers to the primary contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Science Foundation's contracting officers and program managers. As a sole-source award, the justification and approval process would be subject to specific federal procurement regulations (e.g., FAR Part 6). Transparency regarding the specific justification for the sole-source award would be key for public accountability. Inspector General involvement would typically be triggered by allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Utility Contracts
National Science Foundation Operations
Virginia Infrastructure Spending
Electric Grid Modernization (indirectly)

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing.
Long contract duration may not align with evolving energy technologies or market conditions.
Lack of transparency regarding the specific justification for sole-source procurement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Science Foundation awarded $7.2 million to VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF ALEXANDRIA POWER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-08-24. End: 2024-08-23.

What was the specific justification provided for awarding this electric power distribution contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is a common designation for sole-source procurements. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 outlines the circumstances under which a contract may be awarded without full and open competition. Typical justifications include the existence of only one responsible source, a public exigency requiring immediate contract award, or when a statute expressly authorizes or requires sole-source procurement. Without access to the specific Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) document, the precise rationale remains unknown. However, for utility services, it often relates to the incumbent provider being the only feasible option due to existing infrastructure, geographic monopolies, or specific regulatory requirements.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar electric power distribution contracts for federal agencies of comparable size or in similar geographic regions?

Comparing the annual cost of approximately $1 million for this National Science Foundation contract to similar federal electric power distribution contracts is challenging without more granular data. Factors such as the specific load requirements, voltage levels, reliability standards (e.g., uptime guarantees), infrastructure maintenance responsibilities, and the presence of any specialized services (like backup power solutions or grid modernization support) vary significantly. Utility rates are also heavily influenced by local market conditions, regulatory environments, and the specific service territory. Generally, federal agencies aim to secure competitive rates, but sole-source awards, as in this case, may not reflect the lowest possible market price. A detailed comparison would require analyzing contracts with similar scope, duration, and geographic context, ideally those awarded competitively.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract to ensure reliable electric power distribution?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. However, for electric power distribution services, typical SLAs would likely focus on metrics such as power availability (uptime percentage), response times for outages, restoration times after disruptions, power quality (voltage and frequency stability), and adherence to safety protocols. KPIs might include the number of unplanned outages, average duration of outages, and customer service responsiveness. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the contractor bears the primary responsibility for meeting these performance standards, with potential penalties for non-compliance, although the specifics would be detailed in the contract's statement of work and terms and conditions.

What is the historical spending pattern for electric power distribution services by the National Science Foundation, and how does this award fit within that trend?

The provided data only includes details for this specific contract award. To assess historical spending patterns, one would need to examine previous contracts awarded by the National Science Foundation for similar electric power distribution services. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for prior awards to VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY or other utility providers serving NSF facilities. Analyzing these historical data points would reveal trends in contract values, durations, competition levels, and pricing. This $7.2 million award over seven years represents a significant, long-term commitment. Understanding if this is a typical award size and duration, or an outlier, would provide valuable context on NSF's approach to securing essential utility services.

Are there any specific risks associated with relying on a single provider for essential utility services like electric power distribution, particularly given the long contract duration?

Relying on a single provider for essential utility services like electric power distribution carries several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition, as seen in this sole-source award, can lead to complacency and potentially higher costs over time, as the provider faces no market pressure to innovate or offer better pricing. Secondly, the long duration (seven years) increases the risk of the contract terms becoming outdated relative to market advancements in energy technology, efficiency, or pricing models. It also ties the agency to a single vendor, limiting flexibility if service quality declines or if better alternatives emerge. Furthermore, dependence on one provider can create vulnerabilities; any disruption to that provider's operations (e.g., financial instability, labor disputes, major infrastructure failures) could directly impact the agency's ability to function.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › UTILITIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Dominion Energy, Inc.

Address: 120 TREDEGAR ST, RICHMOND, VA, 23219

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,387,796

Exercised Options: $10,429,541

Current Obligation: $7,220,485

Actual Outlays: $3,459,427

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00P08BSD0560

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline