DoD's $17.9M training contract awarded to Communication Technologies, Inc. for cadet staffing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,890,057 ($17.9M)

Contractor: Communication Technologies, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-27

End Date: 2009-06-26

Contract Duration: 91 days

Daily Burn Rate: $196.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CADET COMMAND ALTERNATE STAFFING

Place of Performance

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

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.9 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC for work described as: CADET COMMAND ALTERNATE STAFFING Key points: 1. The contract value of $17.9 million for a 91-day period suggests a high per-diem cost for training services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, the contract saw 6 bidders, indicating a competitive market for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the short duration may limit the ability to realize economies of scale. 4. The specific nature of 'cadet alternate staffing' requires further clarification to fully assess performance and value. 5. The contract's focus on professional development training aligns with the broader government push for skilled federal workforces. 6. The award to a single vendor, Communication Technologies, Inc., warrants a review of their past performance and capacity.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $17.9 million over 91 days equates to approximately $196,594 per day. Without specific details on the services rendered, it's difficult to benchmark this against similar contracts. However, the high daily rate suggests that the cost per individual trained or the scope of services provided must be substantial. Further analysis would require understanding the deliverables and the number of personnel involved to determine if this represents good value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with six bids received. This level of competition is generally positive, suggesting that multiple vendors were interested and capable of providing the required services. The presence of six bidders likely contributed to price discovery and potentially drove down the final award price compared to a less competitive scenario. The agency's decision to use full and open competition indicates a belief that a robust market exists for this type of training.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by encouraging vendors to offer their best prices. The six bids received suggest that the government had a good selection of options, increasing the likelihood of a cost-effective award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the cadets undergoing professional and management development training, enhancing their skills for future roles. The services delivered include specialized training crucial for the operational readiness and effectiveness of military personnel. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Department of the Army's training facilities, primarily in Virginia. Workforce implications include the development of a more skilled and adaptable cadre of future military leaders.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The high daily cost warrants scrutiny to ensure efficient use of funds.
The short contract duration may indicate a specific, immediate need rather than a long-term program, requiring careful planning for follow-on needs.
Lack of detailed service descriptions makes it hard to assess the true value and effectiveness of the training provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with multiple bidders, indicating a healthy market and competitive pricing.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract focuses on professional development, aligning with efforts to enhance military personnel capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector, a niche within the broader government services market. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430, Professional and Management Development Training, encompasses establishments primarily engaged in offering educational programs for business professionals and managers. The market for such services within the defense sector is significant, driven by the continuous need for specialized skills and leadership development among military personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other training contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar skill development programs.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the contract was not awarded to a small business. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal for this specific award, though it does not preclude the prime contractor from utilizing small businesses in their supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army contracting officers and program managers. As a firm-fixed-price contract, the primary accountability measure is the delivery of the specified training services within the agreed-upon budget and timeframe. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. While no specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is mentioned, the DoD IG would have oversight authority over potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Training Programs
Military Professional Development
Federal Workforce Training Initiatives
Government Contracted Services

Risk Flags

High daily cost warrants further investigation.
Lack of detailed service description hinders value assessment.
Short contract duration may indicate a limited scope or immediate need.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.9 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CADET COMMAND ALTERNATE STAFFING

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 $17.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-27. End: 2009-06-26.

What specific training modules or curriculum were covered under this 'cadet alternate staffing' contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact training modules or curriculum covered under the 'CADET COMMAND ALTERNATE STAFFING' contract. The NAICS code 611430, 'Professional and Management Development Training,' suggests a focus on enhancing business and management skills for professionals. However, the term 'cadet alternate staffing' implies a unique requirement within the Department of the Army, possibly related to ensuring continuity of operations or providing specialized support personnel during periods of high demand or personnel shortages for cadet command functions. Without further documentation, the precise nature of the training remains unclear, making it difficult to assess its direct relevance and effectiveness for the intended beneficiaries.

How does the per-diem cost of approximately $196,594 compare to industry benchmarks for similar professional development training?

The calculated per-diem cost of approximately $196,594 for this contract is exceptionally high when compared to typical industry benchmarks for professional and management development training. Standard training programs, even those involving specialized instructors or complex simulations, rarely reach such daily expenditures. This high figure suggests that either the training involved a very small number of high-level participants, included extensive logistical support, or encompassed highly specialized, perhaps unique, services not commonly found in the open market. Without detailed information on the number of trainees, the specific services provided, and the duration of each training session, a direct comparison is challenging, but the initial figure raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of this particular contract.

What is the track record of Communication Technologies, Inc. in delivering similar government training contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of Communication Technologies, Inc. in delivering similar government training contracts is not detailed in the provided data. While the company was awarded this $17.9 million contract by the Department of the Army, the data does not include details on their past performance metrics, client satisfaction, or experience with contracts of comparable scope and complexity. A thorough assessment of their capabilities would require reviewing their contract history, including any past performance evaluations, debriefings from previous solicitations, and any awards or penalties received on prior government contracts. This information is crucial for understanding their reliability and expertise in fulfilling federal training requirements.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this training contract?

The provided contract data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) that were used to evaluate the success of this training contract. For professional and management development training, typical KPIs might include trainee satisfaction surveys, pre- and post-training knowledge assessments, observed improvements in job performance, or the successful application of learned skills in subsequent duties. Given the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract, the primary measure of success would likely be the completion of the contracted training services as specified. However, without explicit KPIs, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the effectiveness and value derived from the $17.9 million investment.

How does the spending on this contract compare to historical spending patterns for cadet training within the Department of the Army?

The provided data does not offer historical spending patterns for cadet training within the Department of the Army, making a direct comparison difficult. This contract, valued at $17.9 million over 91 days, represents a significant expenditure for a specific training initiative. To contextualize this spending, one would need access to historical contract databases or budget reports from the Army to identify similar training efforts, their durations, costs, and the number of personnel involved. Understanding whether this contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in cadet training compared to previous years or similar initiatives is essential for assessing its significance within the broader budgetary landscape.

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: $17,890,057

Exercised Options: $17,890,057

Current Obligation: $17,890,057

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912SU07D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline