EPA's $85M contract for CDM Federal Programs Corp. for environmental services awarded in 1999

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $85,019,146 ($85.0M)

Contractor: CDM FED. Programs Corp.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 1999-11-15

End Date: 2005-09-28

Contract Duration: 2,144 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: DENVER, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80202

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $85.0 million to CDM FED. PROGRAMS CORP. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded under a full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA), can incentivize performance but may lead to higher costs if not managed closely. 3. With a duration of 2144 days, this was a significant, long-term engagement for environmental services. 4. The contract was awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indicating a focus on environmental protection and remediation. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor was not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities may be limited. 6. The contract's end date in 2005 indicates it is a historical award, useful for benchmarking current spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and the specific nature of environmental services. Cost Plus Award Fee contracts, while offering flexibility and performance incentives, can sometimes result in costs exceeding initial estimates if oversight is not rigorous. Without detailed performance metrics and award fee payouts, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the substantial dollar amount suggests a significant scope of work was undertaken.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This typically leads to a more competitive environment, potentially driving down prices and improving service quality. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant contract.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive marketplace that can lead to more cost-effective solutions and better value for public funds.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary beneficiary, utilizing these services to fulfill its mission. The contract likely supported a range of environmental services, potentially including site assessment, remediation, consulting, and program management. Services were likely delivered within the United States, supporting EPA's national environmental protection efforts. The contract supported a significant workforce, both directly employed by CDM Federal Programs Corp. and potentially through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and award fees are justified by performance.
The long duration of the contract could present challenges in adapting to evolving environmental regulations or technologies if not managed proactively.
Limited information on the number of bidders (only 2) might suggest potential barriers to entry or a concentrated market for these specialized services.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible bidding process.
The contract's substantial value suggests it addressed a critical need for the EPA.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, if managed effectively, can drive high performance and successful outcomes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on environmental consulting and remediation. The market for such services is driven by regulatory compliance, environmental stewardship, and the need for specialized expertise. The EPA is a major client in this sector, awarding numerous contracts for a wide array of environmental programs. Benchmarking this $85 million award requires comparison with other large-scale environmental service contracts awarded to major federal contractors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a large business, CDM Federal Programs Corp. While there's no explicit information on subcontracting plans, large federal contracts often include provisions for small business participation. However, the lack of a specific small business set-aside means opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting, rather than direct prime contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, performance monitoring and evaluation would be critical to determining award fee payments. Transparency would depend on EPA's reporting practices for such contracts. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

EPA Superfund Program
EPA Environmental Services Contracts
Federal Environmental Consulting Services
Department of Defense Environmental Remediation

Risk Flags

Contract duration exceeds 5 years.
Cost-plus contract type requires close monitoring.
Limited number of bids received (2) may indicate reduced competition.
Historical data requires adjustment for inflation and market changes for current comparisons.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $85.0 million to CDM FED. PROGRAMS CORP.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CDM FED. PROGRAMS CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $85.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-15. End: 2005-09-28.

What was the specific scope of work covered by this $85 million contract?

While the provided data does not detail the specific scope of work, contracts of this magnitude awarded by the EPA to firms like CDM Federal Programs Corp. typically encompass a broad range of environmental services. This could include, but is not limited to, environmental assessments, site investigations, feasibility studies, remediation design and oversight, hazardous waste management, compliance monitoring, technical support for regulatory programs (such as Superfund or RCRA), and emergency response planning. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests that performance metrics related to these services were established, and the contractor's success in meeting or exceeding them influenced the final payment.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure typically impact contractor performance and cost?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contract structure allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs incurred, plus a base fee (profit) that is fixed at the outset. Additionally, a performance-related award fee is provided, determined by the government based on pre-defined performance criteria. This structure is intended to incentivize contractors to exceed minimum performance standards. However, it requires robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and that award fees are justified. If not managed carefully, the 'cost-plus' nature can lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts, while the 'award fee' component adds a variable element that depends heavily on subjective government evaluation.

What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation imply for this contract's award process?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' designation signifies that the EPA followed a procurement process designed to maximize competition. This means that all qualified businesses, regardless of size or previous relationship with the government, were encouraged and permitted to submit proposals. The agency likely published a solicitation on a public platform, allowing any responsible source to compete. This approach is generally favored for ensuring the government receives the best possible value by leveraging a wide range of potential solutions and competitive pricing. The fact that only two bids were received, however, might warrant further investigation into market dynamics or potential barriers to entry for other firms.

Given the contract's end date in 2005, how can its historical data be used for current analysis?

Historical contract data, like this $85 million EPA award ending in 2005, serves as a valuable benchmark for understanding long-term spending trends and the evolution of service costs in the federal environmental sector. It can be used to compare historical pricing models (like CPA) against current procurement strategies, assess the growth or contraction of specific service areas, and evaluate the performance of contractors over time. While direct cost comparisons are affected by inflation and market changes, the structure, duration, and scope of such historical contracts provide context for current contract negotiations and performance expectations. It helps analysts identify patterns in federal spending and contractor engagement within the environmental domain.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract like this (2144 days)?

Long-duration contracts, such as this one spanning nearly six years (2144 days), carry several potential risks. Firstly, the risk of scope creep or requirements becoming outdated due to evolving regulations, technological advancements, or changing agency priorities is significant. Without careful management and potential contract modifications, the services delivered might become less relevant or efficient over time. Secondly, maintaining consistent performance and quality over an extended period can be challenging for both the contractor and the government oversight team. Finally, market conditions and pricing can fluctuate considerably over such a long timeframe, potentially impacting the initial cost assumptions and the overall value proposition if not adequately addressed through contract clauses or adjustments.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 7611 LITTLE RIVER TPKE, ANNANDALE

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $329,422

Exercised Options: $19,667,004

Current Obligation: $85,019,146

Timeline