Communication Technologies, Inc. awarded $14.5M for Senior Military Science Instructor services, a significant investment in training

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,521,482 ($14.5M)

Contractor: Communication Technologies, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-12-01

End Date: 2008-02-29

Contract Duration: 90 days

Daily Burn Rate: $161.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: Other

Official Description: SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI

Place of Performance

Location: FORT MONROE, HAMPTON (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 23651

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.5 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC for work described as: SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI Key points: 1. The contract value represents a substantial allocation for specialized instructor services. 2. Analysis of competition dynamics is crucial given the contract's nature. 3. Performance context and historical data are key to assessing value. 4. The sector positioning highlights the importance of skilled instruction in military readiness. 5. Risk indicators may include instructor retention and curriculum relevance.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $14.5 million for a 90-day period appears high when considering the duration. Benchmarking against similar contracts for senior military science instructors is necessary to determine if the pricing is competitive. Without more granular data on the scope of services and the number of instructors provided, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The contract's award date in 2007 also suggests that current market rates may differ significantly.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment for these specialized services. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers, though the ultimate price still needs to be benchmarked against service scope.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure services at the best possible price. The multiple bids suggest that the government explored various options, potentially leading to cost savings compared to a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the military personnel receiving instruction, enhancing their readiness and capabilities. The services delivered are critical for the development and training of future military leaders. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Army's training facilities. Workforce implications include the need for highly qualified and experienced instructors in military science.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs without adequate oversight.
Risk of instructor turnover impacting training continuity and quality.
Ensuring curriculum remains up-to-date with evolving military doctrine and technology.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The contract specifies a clear period of performance, aiding in budget management.
The nature of the service implies a focus on critical skill development for military personnel.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the professional and management development training sector, specifically catering to military education. This sector is characterized by specialized knowledge and often involves government contracts due to the unique training needs of armed forces. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for military instruction and leadership development programs within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. The contract was awarded to Communication Technologies, Inc., and further analysis would be needed to determine if they utilized small business subcontractors. The absence of set-asides suggests the primary focus was on securing the most qualified large or small business capable of meeting the stringent requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Army's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to performance metrics outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Military Training Services
Professional Development Programs
Defense Education Contracts
Senior Military Instructor Contracts

Risk Flags

High cost per day
Short contract duration for significant value

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.5 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-12-01. End: 2008-02-29.

What was the specific scope of services provided under this contract?

The data provided indicates the contract was for 'SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI' services. While the exact scope is not detailed, this typically involves providing experienced personnel to instruct military cadets or personnel in subjects related to military science, leadership, tactics, and strategy. This could include curriculum development, classroom instruction, field training guidance, and mentorship. The contract's duration of 90 days suggests a focused period of instruction, possibly for a specific course, training cycle, or event.

How does the awarded amount of $14.5 million compare to similar contracts for military science instruction?

Direct comparison is difficult without knowing the exact deliverables, duration, and number of instructors. However, $14.5 million for a 90-day period appears to be a high value. Typical contracts for instructor services might span longer periods or involve a larger cadre of instructors. To provide a true benchmark, one would need to analyze contracts with similar service requirements, geographic locations, and award dates. Given the 2007 award date, current market rates could be substantially different, making direct price comparisons challenging without inflation adjustments and scope normalization.

What are the key risk indicators associated with this type of contract?

Key risk indicators for this contract include the potential for instructor turnover, which could disrupt training continuity and quality. Ensuring the instructors possess and maintain up-to-date knowledge of military doctrine, technology, and operational environments is another risk. Performance quality is critical; a failure to deliver effective instruction could impact military readiness. Furthermore, the high value for a short duration might indicate a risk of inefficient resource allocation or potential for scope creep if not tightly managed.

What was the contractor's track record prior to this award?

The provided data does not include information on Communication Technologies, Inc.'s prior track record. A comprehensive analysis would require researching the company's history with federal contracts, including past performance evaluations, any prior disputes or terminations, and their experience in providing similar military science instructor services. Without this historical context, it's difficult to assess their reliability and capability beyond the fact that they were selected through a competitive process.

How does this spending align with historical federal spending on military education and training?

This $14.5 million contract represents a specific investment within the broader category of federal spending on military education and training. The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant portions of its budget to training and readiness. To assess alignment, one would need to examine historical spending trends for similar instructor services, military academies, or specialized training programs over several fiscal years. This particular contract, awarded in 2007, would be a data point within that larger trend, reflecting the priorities and funding levels of that era.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Business Schools and Computer and Management Training › Professional and Management Development Training

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W912SU07R0007

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 14151 NEWBROOK DR STE 400, CHANTILLY, VA, 90

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,521,482

Exercised Options: $14,521,482

Current Obligation: $14,521,482

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912SU07D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline