DoD's $82.3M Remediation Services Contract Awarded to North Wind Portage, Inc. for FUSRAP Site

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $82,302,199 ($82.3M)

Contractor: North Wind Portage, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-06-27

End Date: 2021-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,648 days

Daily Burn Rate: $49.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BASE PERIOD, FUSRAP LUCKEY SATOC

Place of Performance

Location: LUCKEY, WOOD County, OHIO, 43443

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $82.3 million to NORTH WIND PORTAGE, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BASE PERIOD, FUSRAP LUCKEY SATOC Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in environmental remediation. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for specialized services. 3. Risk indicators include the Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing structure, which can incentivize cost overruns. 4. Performance context is tied to the complex and long-term nature of FUSRAP site cleanups. 5. Sector positioning is within the environmental services industry, supporting critical government cleanup missions.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $82.3 million for remediation services appears substantial, reflecting the complexity of FUSRAP sites. Benchmarking against similar large-scale environmental remediation contracts is necessary for a definitive value assessment. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for uncertain scope work, carries inherent risks of cost escalation compared to fixed-price contracts. Without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating a specific justification for limiting the initial pool of bidders. While this suggests some level of competition, it is not as broad as full and open competition from the outset. The number of bidders and the specific reasons for excluding other sources would provide further insight into the actual competitive landscape and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than if a broader range of qualified contractors had been solicited from the start. Taxpayers benefit from specialized expertise, but the pricing could be less optimized due to restricted bidding.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and potentially the public through the cleanup of hazardous sites. Services delivered include environmental remediation and site management at FUSRAP locations. Geographic impact is focused on the specific FUSRAP site in Ohio (Luckey). Workforce implications include employment for environmental scientists, engineers, and remediation technicians.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the environmental remediation services sector, a critical component of government operations, particularly for agencies managing legacy contamination. The market for environmental remediation is substantial, driven by regulatory requirements and historical land use. This contract represents a significant portion of spending for a specific FUSRAP site, requiring specialized technical expertise and project management capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale environmental cleanup contracts awarded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb flags) was not a primary consideration or requirement for this specific contract award. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contractor, North Wind Portage, Inc., is likely a larger entity capable of performing the extensive remediation work independently or through its own established supply chain, potentially limiting direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses on this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to contract performance requirements, milestones, and deliverables outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

environmental-remediation, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, fusrap, cost-plus-fixed-fee, limited-competition, remediation-services, north-wind-portage-inc, ohio, large-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $82.3 million to NORTH WIND PORTAGE, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF BASE PERIOD, FUSRAP LUCKEY SATOC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORTH WIND PORTAGE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $82.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-06-27. End: 2021-12-31.

What is the track record of North Wind Portage, Inc. in managing large-scale environmental remediation projects, particularly for FUSRAP sites?

North Wind Portage, Inc. has a history of performing environmental services for government agencies. Their experience with FUSRAP sites, specifically, would need to be examined through contract performance reports and past performance evaluations. A review of their portfolio would reveal the scale and complexity of projects they have successfully managed, including their ability to meet deadlines, stay within budget (relative to CPFF structures), and adhere to environmental regulations. Information on any past performance issues or commendations would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their capabilities for this specific contract.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types for similar environmental remediation services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is often used when the scope of work is not fully defined or is expected to change significantly, as is common in complex environmental remediation. It allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF offers flexibility but carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to earn their fee. Firm-fixed-price contracts, conversely, provide greater cost certainty for the government but require a well-defined scope and can deter contractors from taking on highly uncertain projects. Hybrid structures also exist. For FUSRAP sites, CPFF is frequently employed due to the inherent uncertainties in subsurface contamination and remediation techniques.

What are the primary risks associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type for this contract?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type implies that while the competition was intended to be open, specific sources were excluded from the initial solicitation phase, likely due to pre-qualification requirements or specific contract vehicles. The primary risk for taxpayers is that this exclusion might have limited the pool of potential bidders, potentially leading to less competitive pricing than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. It could also indicate a reliance on specific contract vehicles or existing relationships that may not always yield the best value. Understanding the justification for the exclusion is key to assessing whether this approach was appropriate and did not unduly restrict competition.

What is the historical spending trend for environmental remediation services at FUSRAP sites managed by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on environmental remediation at FUSRAP sites managed by the Department of the Army has been substantial and ongoing, reflecting the long-term nature of these cleanup efforts. Annual expenditures can fluctuate based on the number of active sites, the phase of remediation (investigation, design, remediation, long-term monitoring), and specific site complexities. The Army, through programs like FUSRAP, has consistently allocated significant resources to address contamination from past atomic energy activities. Analyzing multi-year spending data would reveal trends in contract awards, average contract values, and the types of services most frequently procured, providing context for the $82.3 million awarded in this instance.

How does the performance of North Wind Portage, Inc. on this contract compare to industry benchmarks for remediation project completion times and cost adherence?

Assessing North Wind Portage, Inc.'s performance against industry benchmarks requires access to detailed contract performance data, including schedule adherence, cost performance indices (if available for CPFF), and quality metrics. Industry benchmarks for environmental remediation projects vary widely depending on site complexity, regulatory environment, and remediation technology used. Generally, large-scale remediation projects often face delays and cost increases due to unforeseen site conditions or evolving regulatory requirements. A comparative analysis would involve examining metrics such as the percentage of projects completed on time and within budget (adjusted for CPFF structure), the number of change orders, and client satisfaction ratings, benchmarked against similar projects undertaken by other major environmental service providers.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT)PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912P414R0002

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Cook Inlet Region Inc (UEI: 076630334)

Address: 1075 S UTAH AVE STE 200, IDAHO FALLS, ID, 83402

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $82,302,199

Exercised Options: $82,302,199

Current Obligation: $82,302,199

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912P415D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2017-06-27

Current End Date: 2021-12-31

Potential End Date: 2021-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-09-29

More Contracts from North Wind Portage, Inc.

View all North Wind Portage, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending