EPA's $62M contract with Metcalf & Eddy Inc. for environmental services awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $62,271,152 ($62.3M)

Contractor: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2000-01-15

End Date: 2011-09-21

Contract Duration: 4,267 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: WAKEFIELD, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01880

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $62.3 million to METCALF & EDDY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for environmental services, indicating a need for specialized technical expertise. 2. The contract duration of over 11 years suggests a long-term, significant program requirement. 3. Awarded under a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure, which incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 4. The contract was competed fully and openly, suggesting a competitive market for these services. 5. The contractor, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., has a substantial contract value, implying significant experience and capacity. 6. The contract's primary agency is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aligning with its environmental mission.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $62.3 million over approximately 11.5 years averages to about $5.4 million annually. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can drive efficiency. Benchmarking against similar large-scale environmental consulting contracts would be necessary for a more precise value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While two bidders is better than one, a higher number of bids typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging a wider range of potential contractors to compete, which can drive down prices and improve service quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring environmental consulting and remediation services, managed by the EPA. Services delivered would encompass a range of environmental engineering, consulting, and potentially project management tasks. The geographic impact is likely national, given the EPA's broad mandate, though specific project locations would vary. Workforce implications include employment for environmental engineers, scientists, and project managers within the contractor's organization and potentially subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contracts can lead to higher costs if not managed diligently, as contractor profits are tied to performance metrics that may be subjective.
The long duration of the contract (over 11 years) presents a risk of cost escalation due to inflation or changes in project scope over time.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may not have resulted in the most cost-effective solution for taxpayers.
Lack of specific performance data makes it difficult to assess if the award fee structure effectively incentivized optimal performance.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing the pool of potential offerors.
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure incentivizes contractor performance and efficiency.
The contract value suggests a significant and potentially complex environmental services requirement, indicating the contractor's capability.
The long contract duration implies a stable, ongoing need for these critical environmental services.

Sector Analysis

Environmental consulting and engineering services represent a significant sector within the broader professional services industry. This contract falls within the domain of environmental management and remediation, a field driven by regulatory compliance and public health concerns. The federal government is a major client in this sector, awarding substantial contracts for services ranging from site assessments to long-term cleanup operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large EPA contracts or similar procurements by agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Energy for environmental services.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. The contractor, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., is likely a large business. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without specific subcontracting goals or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though large prime contracts often involve subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

The oversight for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contract would primarily fall under the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Environmental Protection Agency. The CPA structure itself implies performance monitoring to determine award fees. Transparency would be enhanced through contract award databases and public reporting, but detailed performance reviews and cost breakdowns may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

EPA Superfund Program
EPA Brownfields Program
Department of Defense Environmental Remediation
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects
Department of Energy Environmental Management

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs and ensure value.
Long contract duration (over 11 years) increases risk of cost escalation and potential for scope creep.
Limited number of bidders (2) may indicate insufficient market competition, potentially impacting price discovery.
Lack of specific performance data makes it difficult to fully assess value for money and contractor performance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $62.3 million to METCALF & EDDY, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is METCALF & EDDY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $62.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-01-15. End: 2011-09-21.

What specific environmental services were covered under this contract, and what were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine award fees?

The provided data does not detail the specific environmental services rendered or the key performance indicators (KPIs) for award fee determination. Typically, contracts of this nature with the EPA could encompass a wide range of services including environmental assessments, site investigations, feasibility studies, remedial design, construction management, hazardous waste management, and regulatory compliance support. The award fee structure in a CPA contract is designed to incentivize contractor performance beyond minimum requirements. KPIs would likely be tailored to the specific services, potentially including factors like schedule adherence, cost control, quality of deliverables, innovation, and responsiveness to EPA directives. Without access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and performance reports, a precise understanding of services and KPIs is not possible.

How does the average annual cost of this contract ($5.4 million) compare to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by the EPA or other federal agencies?

Comparing the average annual cost of $5.4 million requires benchmarking against contracts with similar scope, duration, and complexity. Large-scale environmental consulting and remediation contracts awarded by agencies like the EPA, DoD, or DOE can range significantly, from a few million to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the nature of the work (e.g., site cleanup complexity, research, policy development). A contract of this size suggests a substantial program or a portfolio of projects. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze contracts for similar services (e.g., remedial action support, environmental engineering design) awarded over a comparable timeframe, considering factors like geographic scope, specific environmental media involved (soil, water, air), and the level of technical expertise required. Without such a detailed comparative analysis, it's difficult to definitively state whether $5.4 million annually represents a high, low, or average cost.

What is the track record of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. in performing similar large-scale environmental contracts for the federal government?

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. has a significant history of performing large-scale environmental contracts, particularly for federal agencies. As a contractor on this $62.3 million EPA contract spanning over 11 years, their track record suggests substantial experience in delivering environmental services. Historically, companies like Metcalf & Eddy (often operating under various corporate structures or as part of larger entities over time) have been involved in major environmental programs, including those managed by the EPA (like Superfund) and the Department of Defense. Their ability to secure and execute long-term, high-value contracts indicates a capacity for complex project management, technical expertise, and compliance with federal procurement regulations. A deeper dive into their past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, or awards/recognitions would provide a more granular view of their specific strengths and weaknesses in executing similar federal projects.

Given the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure, what are the primary risks associated with cost overruns and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contracts is the potential for cost overruns, as the government agrees to reimburse the contractor for allowable costs. Unlike fixed-price contracts, the final cost is not predetermined. Contractor profit is tied to performance, creating an incentive to perform well, but not necessarily to control costs beyond what is needed to achieve performance targets. Risks include scope creep, inefficient performance, or inadequate cost management by the contractor, leading to costs exceeding initial estimates. Mitigation strategies employed by the government include rigorous oversight by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (CO), detailed review of incurred costs, clear definition of performance standards and award fee criteria, and negotiation of appropriate fee structures. The 'award fee' portion is contingent on meeting or exceeding defined performance objectives, providing a lever to reward good performance and implicitly penalize poor performance, though it doesn't directly cap the 'cost' portion.

What was the total spending on environmental services by the EPA in the years this contract was active (2000-2011), and how does this contract represent a portion of that spending?

To determine the total EPA spending on environmental services during the contract's active period (January 15, 2000, to September 21, 2011), one would need to access historical federal spending databases (like USAspending.gov archives or agency budget reports). This contract, valued at approximately $62.3 million over its lifespan, represents a significant but specific investment within the EPA's broader environmental services budget. The EPA's annual budget is in the billions of dollars, funding a vast array of programs including regulatory enforcement, research, grants, and direct remediation efforts. This single contract would likely constitute a small percentage of the EPA's total annual obligations for environmental services, but it could represent a substantial portion of funding for a particular type of service or a specific program area managed by the agency.

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

Parent Company: AECOM (UEI: 153561212)

Address: 701 EDGE WATER DR, WAKEFIELD, MA, 06

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,086,634

Exercised Options: $8,171,452

Current Obligation: $62,271,152

Timeline