EPA's $253M contract for environmental services spanned a decade, highlighting long-term program needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,319,503 ($25.3M)

Contractor: CDM FED. Programs Corp.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 1997-09-15

End Date: 2007-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,667 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19107

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $25.3 million to CDM FED. PROGRAMS CORP. for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's duration suggests a sustained need for environmental services, potentially indicating a stable but possibly inflexible program. 2. A decade-long engagement may present opportunities for cost efficiencies through long-term partnership, but also risks of vendor lock-in. 3. The cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes performance but requires robust oversight to ensure value for money. 4. The absence of small business set-asides warrants examination of subcontracting opportunities for smaller firms. 5. The contract's significant value and long term suggest a critical role in the EPA's environmental program support. 6. The definitive contract type indicates a clear scope, but the cost-plus nature requires careful monitoring of expenditures.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific service details and comparable contract data. The cost-plus award fee structure, while common for complex services, can lead to cost overruns if not tightly managed. The extended duration of nearly 10 years suggests a potentially stable, albeit high, overall expenditure. Without more granular data on the services provided and their unit costs, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the significant total award indicates substantial investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This approach generally promotes competitive pricing and allows the government to select the best value offer. The fact that it was competed suggests a healthy market for these types of environmental services. However, the specific number of bidders and the details of the evaluation process are not provided, which limits a deeper analysis of the competitive dynamics.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces. It ensures that the government is not unduly influenced by a single provider and has access to a wider range of solutions and expertise.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential support for its environmental programs. The contract likely supported a range of environmental services, potentially including research, monitoring, data analysis, and program management. Services were likely delivered across various geographic regions where EPA operates, impacting national environmental initiatives. The contract may have supported a workforce of environmental scientists, engineers, and support staff, contributing to specialized employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The cost-plus award fee structure necessitates rigorous oversight to prevent uncontrolled cost growth.
The long contract duration could lead to complacency or reduced innovation if not actively managed.
Lack of explicit small business participation details raises concerns about equitable opportunity for smaller firms.
The absence of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to objectively assess contractor success beyond award fees.

Positive Signals

The full and open competition indicates a robust selection process, likely yielding a qualified contractor.
The award fee mechanism incentivizes high performance, suggesting a focus on achieving specific outcomes.
The extended period of performance implies a stable, reliable service delivery, crucial for ongoing environmental programs.
The significant contract value suggests the contractor is capable of handling large-scale, complex environmental support tasks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically supporting environmental consulting and management. The market for such services is substantial, driven by regulatory compliance and environmental stewardship needs across government and industry. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large, long-term EPA contracts or similar agency procurements for environmental support services, which often run into hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifecycles.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). This suggests that the procurement was open to all responsible sources, including large businesses. While this can lead to access to greater resources and expertise, it also means that specific opportunities for small business subcontracting may not have been mandated or prioritized. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting plans were required or if small businesses participated in the supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's oversight would primarily fall under the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus award fee structure inherently requires detailed monitoring of costs and performance against defined objectives to determine award fees. Transparency would depend on EPA's reporting practices and any Inspector General (IG) involvement, though specific IG reports related to this contract are not detailed here. Robust oversight is critical to ensure the contractor meets performance expectations and manages costs effectively.

Related Government Programs

EPA Environmental Consulting Services
Federal Environmental Remediation Contracts
Scientific and Technical Support Services
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) for Professional Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may indicate potential for cost creep without strict oversight.
Cost-plus award fee structure requires diligent monitoring of expenditures and performance.
Lack of small business participation noted; requires verification of subcontracting efforts.
Absence of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders objective value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $25.3 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 $25.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1997-09-15. End: 2007-09-30.

What specific environmental services were rendered under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact environmental services rendered. However, given the agency (EPA) and the contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee), it likely encompassed a broad range of technical and professional support. This could include activities such as environmental monitoring and sampling, data analysis and reporting, regulatory compliance assistance, environmental impact assessments, remediation support, research and development, and program management support for EPA initiatives. The long duration and significant value suggest these services were critical and ongoing for the agency's mission.

How did the contractor's performance compare to expectations, particularly concerning the award fee?

The data indicates the contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, meaning the contractor's fee was composed of a base cost plus an award amount determined by performance. While the total award amount is $253,195,030, the specific breakdown between costs and award fees, and the contractor's actual performance ratings that led to those fees, are not provided. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing performance reports, award fee determinations, and any associated documentation from the EPA contracting officer to understand how well CDM Federal Programs Corp. met or exceeded the contract's objectives and criteria.

What was the historical spending trend for this specific contract over its nearly 10-year period?

The provided data summarizes the total award amount ($253,195,030) and the period of performance (September 15, 1997, to September 30, 2007), spanning approximately 10 years. However, it does not detail the year-over-year spending. To analyze the historical spending trend, one would need access to the contract's financial execution data, showing the amount obligated and expended each fiscal year. This would reveal if spending was consistent, increased over time, or fluctuated based on program needs or funding availability.

Were there any significant challenges or disputes encountered during the contract's performance?

The provided summary data does not include information on contract challenges, disputes, or modifications. Such details are typically found in contract line item details, modification histories, or agency contract databases. Without this information, it's impossible to assess if the contractor faced significant hurdles, if there were disagreements regarding scope or payment, or if the contract terms were amended substantially over its lifecycle. A review of contract files or agency procurement records would be necessary to identify any such issues.

What is the significance of the 'PA' status code?

The status code 'PA' likely refers to the contract's administrative status within the system where this data was sourced. Common interpretations for 'PA' in federal procurement systems can include 'Pending Award,' 'Partially Awarded,' or 'Procurement Action.' Given the contract's start and end dates (1997-2007), 'PA' might indicate its status during a specific period or how it was categorized post-completion. Without the specific data dictionary for the source system, its precise meaning remains ambiguous, but it generally relates to the contract's lifecycle stage or administrative handling.

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,089,676

Exercised Options: $41,089,676

Current Obligation: $25,319,503

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline