DoD's $10.5M training contract awarded to Spearhead No. 2 for professional development

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,544,161 ($10.5M)

Contractor: Spearhead NO. 2 of the Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute, a Limited Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-14

End Date: 2008-08-31

Contract Duration: 414 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ENTERPRISE AIRSPEED

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, ST. MARY'S County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.5 million to SPEARHEAD NO. 2 OF THE AVRAHAM Y. GOLDRATT INSTITUTE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP for work described as: ENTERPRISE AIRSPEED Key points: 1. The contract value of $10.5 million for professional development training appears substantial for a single contract duration of approximately 14 months. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract suggests a competitive environment for professional development services within the Department of Defense. 3. The fixed-price contract type may limit cost overruns but could also disincentivize contractor innovation if not carefully managed. 4. The specific nature of 'Professional and Management Development Training' warrants further scrutiny to understand its direct impact on military readiness or efficiency. 5. The relatively short duration of the contract (414 days) might indicate a need for specialized, short-term training solutions rather than long-term development programs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $10.5 million contract is challenging without specific details on the training provided and the number of personnel trained. However, the award amount for approximately 14 months of professional and management development training is significant. Comparing it to similar large-scale training initiatives within the DoD or other federal agencies would be necessary to determine if it represents a fair price for the services rendered. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the value proposition hinges on the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered.

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 offers. With 3 bidders, the competition level suggests a moderate degree of market interest. While more than one bidder is positive, a higher number of competitors typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would provide further insight into how effectively this competition translated into value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through market forces. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the government likely received competitive pricing, although the exact degree of savings is not quantifiable from the provided data.

Public Impact

Military personnel and civilian employees within the Department of the Navy are the primary beneficiaries of this professional and management development training. The services delivered are focused on enhancing skills and knowledge in professional and management development, potentially improving leadership and operational effectiveness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Department of the Navy's operational areas, though the specific locations are not detailed. Workforce implications include the upskilling of personnel, potentially leading to improved performance and career advancement opportunities within the Navy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on training content and outcomes makes it difficult to assess the true value and impact.
The significant contract value for a relatively short period raises questions about cost-effectiveness and potential for scope creep if not tightly managed.
Limited information on the contractor's past performance in delivering similar large-scale training programs.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair and transparent procurement process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract addresses a clear need for professional and management development within the Department of the Navy.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant market within the broader government services industry. Federal agencies frequently procure training services to enhance the skills of their workforce, covering areas from leadership and management to technical skills. This contract, valued at over $10 million, falls within the mid-to-large range for individual training contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal training contracts, particularly those focused on leadership and management development for uniformed services or large civilian workforces.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific requirement or focus for this contract, as the 'small business set-aside' field is false ('sb': false). There is no information regarding subcontracting plans or goals related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular contract appears minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for specific training components not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, but further details on performance monitoring and reporting would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Training Programs
Navy Professional Development Initiatives
Federal Management Training Services
Government Employee Skill Development

Risk Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics
Limited information on contractor's past performance
Unclear scope of training content and intended outcomes

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.5 million to SPEARHEAD NO. 2 OF THE AVRAHAM Y. GOLDRATT INSTITUTE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. ENTERPRISE AIRSPEED

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SPEARHEAD NO. 2 OF THE AVRAHAM Y. GOLDRATT INSTITUTE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-14. End: 2008-08-31.

What specific professional and management development topics were covered under this contract, and what were the intended outcomes?

The provided data identifies the contract's purpose as 'Professional and Management Development Training' (NAICS 611430). However, it does not specify the curriculum, modules, or the precise skills intended to be developed. To assess the contract's value and effectiveness, a detailed breakdown of the training content is crucial. This would include understanding if the training focused on leadership, strategic planning, project management, communication, or other specialized areas relevant to the Department of the Navy's mission. Without this information, it's difficult to gauge the relevance and potential impact of the training on personnel performance and organizational goals.

How does the $10.5 million contract value compare to the cost of similar professional development training for federal agencies?

The $10.5 million award for approximately 14 months of training is a substantial figure. To benchmark its value, comparisons should be made against other large-scale professional and management development contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies. Factors such as the number of personnel trained, the duration and intensity of the training, and the specific subject matter are critical for a fair comparison. If this contract trained thousands of individuals in comprehensive leadership programs, the per-person cost might be reasonable. Conversely, if it served a smaller group or covered less intensive topics, the value proposition would be less clear. Further analysis would require access to detailed pricing structures and scope of work from comparable contracts.

What is the track record of Spearhead No. 2 of the Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute in delivering large-scale federal training contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of 'Spearhead No. 2 of the Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute, A Limited Partnership' in delivering large-scale federal training contracts is not detailed in the provided data. While the contract award itself indicates they were selected, their past performance, client satisfaction, and history with similar government procurements are essential for a complete risk assessment. A review of their contract history, including past performance evaluations and any reported issues or successes on previous federal contracts, would be necessary to understand their capabilities and reliability in fulfilling this $10.5 million award.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate the success and effectiveness of the training provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics established to measure the success and effectiveness of the professional and management development training. For a contract of this magnitude, it is crucial that clear, measurable objectives were set. These could include post-training assessments, participant feedback surveys, observed changes in on-the-job performance, or improvements in specific management competencies. Without defined KPIs, it is challenging for the government and oversight bodies to objectively determine if the $10.5 million investment yielded the desired results and provided adequate value for taxpayer money.

How does the spending on this specific training contract align with broader trends in federal spending on professional development and training?

This $10.5 million contract represents a significant, albeit specific, investment in professional and management development within the Department of the Navy. Broader federal spending trends indicate a consistent and often increasing allocation towards workforce training and development across various agencies. This is driven by the need to adapt to evolving technological landscapes, changing security environments, and the continuous requirement for skilled leadership. Analyzing this contract's value in the context of overall federal training budgets (which can run into billions annually) helps determine if it represents a typical or outlier investment for its scope and duration. Understanding the agency's overall training strategy would provide further context.

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) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 442 ORANGE ST, NEW HAVEN, CT, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,544,161

Exercised Options: $10,544,161

Current Obligation: $10,544,161

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042106D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline