Communication Technologies, Inc. awarded $15.9M for Senior Military Science Instructor services, a contract competed fully

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,942,432 ($15.9M)

Contractor: Communication Technologies, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-01

End Date: 2008-05-31

Contract Duration: 91 days

Daily Burn Rate: $175.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

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 $15.9 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC for work described as: SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI Key points: 1. The contract value of $15.9M for 91 days of service represents a significant investment in specialized military training. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor assumes the risk for cost overruns. 4. The contract was awarded to Communication Technologies, Inc., a company with a history of government contracts. 5. The NAICS code 611430 points to professional and management development training, a key area for military readiness. 6. The contract duration of 91 days suggests a focused, short-term requirement for instructor services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of services and the qualifications of the instructors. The total award of $15.9M over 91 days equates to approximately $175,192 per day. This daily rate is high and would need to be justified by the specialized nature of the instruction and the qualifications of the personnel provided. Comparing it to similar contracts for senior military science instructors would be necessary to determine if this represents good value for money.

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 bids. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions, which is beneficial for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price and quality for the services rendered, minimizing the risk of inflated costs due to a lack of alternatives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the military personnel receiving specialized instruction, enhancing their readiness and capabilities. The services delivered are critical for the professional development and training of future military leaders. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at the military installation where the training is conducted. Workforce implications include the employment of experienced instructors, potentially drawing from both military veterans and civilian experts.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

High daily rate requires justification for value.
Short contract duration may indicate a recurring need or a specific project phase.
Lack of detailed service scope makes performance assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Multiple bidders (6) indicate market interest and potential for good pricing.

Sector Analysis

The training and development sector within the federal government is substantial, encompassing a wide range of specialized skills. This contract falls under professional and management development training, a critical component of military readiness. The market for such specialized instruction is often niche, with a limited number of highly qualified providers. Benchmarking against similar contracts for military science instruction is key to assessing value, but the overall spending in this sub-sector reflects the continuous need for skilled personnel in the armed forces.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the contractor, Communication Technologies, Inc., is not explicitly identified as a small business in this context. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a small business set-aside. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem would depend on whether Communication Technologies, Inc. utilizes small business subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver services as specified. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Training Services
Professional Development Programs
Defense Education Contracts
Instructor Services
Specialized Skill Training

Risk Flags

High daily rate requires further justification.
Short contract duration may indicate a need for follow-on contracts or specific project phasing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.9 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 $15.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-01. End: 2008-05-31.

What is the specific scope of services provided under the "SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI" contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of services for the "SENIOR MILITARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR-SMSI" contract. However, based on the NAICS code 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training) and the contract title, it can be inferred that the services likely involve providing instruction, curriculum development, and potentially mentorship related to military science. This could encompass areas such as leadership, tactics, strategy, military history, or specific technical skills relevant to military operations. The "Senior" designation suggests experienced instructors are required, possibly with advanced degrees or extensive military experience. Further details would typically be found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW).

How does the $15.9M award compare to historical spending on similar Senior Military Science Instructor services?

Without access to historical spending data specifically for Senior Military Science Instructor services or comparable roles, a direct comparison is not possible. The award of $15.9M over 91 days results in a daily rate of approximately $175,192. This rate is substantial and would need to be benchmarked against similar contracts to assess its competitiveness. Factors influencing this rate could include the level of expertise required, the number of instructors, the complexity of the curriculum, and the specific military branch or institution being supported. A thorough analysis would involve querying federal procurement databases for contracts with similar titles, NAICS codes, and service descriptions over several fiscal years.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of Communication Technologies, Inc. on this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for instructor services, KPIs might include student performance metrics (e.g., pass rates, test scores), instructor evaluation scores from trainees, adherence to curriculum schedules, and successful completion of training objectives. For a firm fixed-price contract, the primary measure of success is the contractor's ability to deliver the agreed-upon services within the specified timeframe and budget. The Department of the Army would likely have internal metrics and oversight processes to assess contractor performance against the contract's Statement of Work.

What is the track record of Communication Technologies, Inc. in performing federal contracts, particularly in the defense sector?

The data indicates that Communication Technologies, Inc. (CTI) was awarded this contract. To assess CTI's track record, one would need to examine their contract history in federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. This would reveal the types of contracts they have held, their performance ratings (if available), past performance on similar services (e.g., training, professional development), and their overall experience with the Department of Defense or other federal agencies. Without this historical data, it's difficult to provide a detailed assessment of their specific track record for this type of service.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for specialized instructor services?

A primary risk with firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or service delivery to maximize profit if costs exceed their initial estimates. For specialized instructor services, this could manifest as less experienced instructors being assigned, reduced curriculum development effort, or insufficient support. Conversely, if the contractor significantly underestimates costs, they may face financial distress or default. The government's risk is ensuring that the defined scope of work is robust enough to prevent quality degradation and that the contractor has the capability and financial stability to perform. Robust oversight and clear performance standards are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How does the competition level (6 bidders) impact the value proposition for the government in this contract?

A competition level of six bidders is generally considered healthy and suggests that the market has sufficient interest and capacity to provide the required services. This level of competition typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award, leading to a better value proposition for the government. It also increases the likelihood that the government will receive proposals that meet or exceed its requirements in terms of quality and technical approach. The government can leverage this competition to negotiate favorable terms and ensure it is obtaining services at a competitive market rate. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract further enhances the value by capping the government's financial exposure.

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: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

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: $15,942,432

Exercised Options: $15,942,432

Current Obligation: $15,942,432

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912SU07D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline