DoD awards $22.4M for PFAS environmental studies at Texas Air Force bases, with a 5-year performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,402,253 ($22.4M)

Contractor: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-09-30

End Date: 2028-06-26

Contract Duration: 1,731 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS/ COST ANALYSES AND NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION STUDIES FOR PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) AT JBSA RANDOLPH AND GOODFELLOW AFB PROJECT NOS. TYMX20237011PF & JCGU7556PF

Place of Performance

Location: RANDOLPH AFB, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78150

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.4 million to EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., PBC for work described as: ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS/ COST ANALYSES AND NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION STUDIES FOR PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) AT JBSA RANDOLPH AND GOODFELLOW AFB PROJECT NOS. TYMX20237011PF & JCGU7556PF Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical environmental remediation studies for PFAS contamination. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 3. Performance period extends over five years, indicating a long-term commitment to addressing contamination. 4. The contract is a delivery order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle. 5. Awarded to EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC, a known entity in environmental services. 6. Geographic focus on JBSA Randolph and Goodfellow AFB highlights specific installation needs. 7. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the complexity and scale of PFAS remediation efforts.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $22.4 million for engineering evaluations and cost analyses related to PFAS at two Air Force bases appears reasonable given the scope and duration. While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract helps control government expenditure. Benchmarking against similar environmental remediation study contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment, but the multi-year performance period and the complexity of PFAS investigations suggest this is a fair price for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the initial solicitation was broad, specific exclusions were made, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The exact reasons for these exclusions are not detailed, but it suggests a rationale for selecting specific contractors based on prior performance, specialized capabilities, or other criteria. The limited competition may impact price negotiation compared to a truly open bid.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can sometimes lead to higher prices for taxpayers if the excluded sources would have offered more competitive bids. However, it can also ensure specialized expertise is utilized, potentially leading to more effective and efficient remediation outcomes.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the specific Air Force installations (JBSA Randolph and Goodfellow AFB) receiving critical environmental assessments. Services delivered include engineering evaluations, cost analyses, and non-time-critical removal action studies for PFAS. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, specifically at the two named Air Force bases. Workforce implications include the employment of environmental scientists, engineers, and technicians by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen complexities arise during the extensive study period.
Dependence on contractor's specialized expertise may limit government oversight on technical details.
The 'exclusion of sources' in competition could indicate a lack of broad market engagement, potentially impacting long-term cost-effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long performance period allows for thorough investigation and planning.
Focus on PFAS addresses a significant and growing environmental concern for military installations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Environmental Consulting and Remediation Services sector, a critical area for government agencies managing legacy contamination and compliance with environmental regulations. The market for PFAS remediation is growing rapidly due to increased awareness and regulatory scrutiny. Spending in this sector is driven by the need to address hazardous substances at federal facilities, military bases, and industrial sites. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale environmental study and remediation contracts awarded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. The prime contractor, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC, is a large business. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for specialized support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration office within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and adherence to contract terms are key oversight functions. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Remediation Services
Military Base Environmental Compliance
PFAS Cleanup Initiatives
Department of Defense Environmental Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price discovery.
Complexity of PFAS remediation presents inherent technical risks.
Long performance period requires sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.4 million to EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., PBC. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS/ COST ANALYSES AND NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION STUDIES FOR PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) AT JBSA RANDOLPH AND GOODFELLOW AFB PROJECT NOS. TYMX20237011PF & JCGU7556PF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., PBC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-30. End: 2028-06-26.

What is the track record of EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC with the Department of Defense, particularly on PFAS-related contracts?

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC has a history of working with the Department of Defense on various environmental projects. While specific details on their PFAS-related contract history with DoD are not fully elaborated in the provided data, their designation as a prime contractor for this significant PFAS study suggests established capabilities and past performance recognized by the agency. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases like FPDS or SAM.gov would reveal the extent and nature of their prior DoD engagements, including contract values, performance periods, and any reported issues or successes. Their ability to secure this contract, especially under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' scenario, implies a level of trust and proven expertise in environmental engineering and remediation services relevant to military installations.

How does the $22.4 million contract value compare to similar PFAS environmental study contracts awarded by the DoD or other federal agencies?

The $22.4 million contract value for engineering evaluations and cost analyses for PFAS at two Air Force bases is substantial, reflecting the complexity and long-term nature of addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Benchmarking this against similar contracts requires access to a broader dataset of federal procurement awards for environmental studies. However, given that PFAS contamination is a widespread and costly issue, and remediation studies are foundational to effective cleanup, this figure is likely within the expected range for multi-year, multi-site projects. Contracts for comprehensive site investigations, risk assessments, and feasibility studies for hazardous materials can easily reach tens of millions of dollars, especially when spanning multiple installations and involving extensive laboratory analysis and reporting. The firm-fixed-price structure also suggests that the government has negotiated a defined cost for the defined scope.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are likely in place?

Key risks for this contract include the potential for unforeseen technical challenges during the environmental studies, which could lead to scope creep or cost increases despite the firm-fixed-price structure. Another risk is the contractor's reliance on specialized expertise, which could limit the government's ability to independently verify technical findings. Furthermore, the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process might indicate a risk of reduced price competition. Mitigation strategies likely include robust government oversight by contracting officers and technical representatives, clear performance metrics, regular progress reviews, and potentially contingency planning within the contract for unforeseen site conditions. The long performance period also allows for phased reviews and adjustments.

How effective are engineering evaluations and cost analyses in addressing PFAS contamination at military installations?

Engineering evaluations and cost analyses are foundational steps in effectively addressing PFAS contamination. These studies provide the critical data needed to understand the extent of contamination, identify potential sources, assess risks to human health and the environment, and determine the most appropriate and cost-effective remediation strategies. Without thorough evaluations and accurate cost projections, cleanup efforts can be inefficient, overly expensive, or fail to achieve desired environmental outcomes. For military installations, which often have complex histories of chemical use and disposal, these initial studies are crucial for developing long-term management plans and securing necessary funding for remediation actions. This contract's focus on these aspects suggests a proactive approach by the DoD to tackle the PFAS challenge systematically.

What are the historical spending patterns for PFAS-related environmental services within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending patterns for PFAS-related environmental services within the Department of Defense have shown a significant upward trend over the past several years. As awareness of PFAS contamination and regulatory pressures have increased, the DoD has allocated substantial resources towards investigating and remediating these 'forever chemicals' across its numerous installations. Early spending focused on initial site investigations and sampling, but has evolved to include more complex studies, pilot programs, and full-scale remediation efforts. The total federal spending on PFAS, including DoD's share, has grown into the billions of dollars annually. This $22.4 million contract is indicative of the ongoing, substantial investment the DoD is making in understanding and addressing PFAS contamination, a trend expected to continue as more sites are identified and cleanup technologies advance.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCES - OTHER SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 225 SCHILLING CIR STE 400, HUNT VALLEY, MD, 21031

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,338,195

Exercised Options: $22,402,253

Current Obligation: $22,402,253

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $15,259,940

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9128F18D0026

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline