DoD's $17.75M training contract awarded to Communication Technologies, Inc. shows fair value but limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,754,027 ($17.8M)

Contractor: Communication Technologies, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-26

End Date: 2009-09-26

Contract Duration: 92 days

Daily Burn Rate: $193.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TASK ORDER 0012 FOR ALTERNATE STAFFING

Place of Performance

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

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.8 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC for work described as: TASK ORDER 0012 FOR ALTERNATE STAFFING Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar professional development services. 2. Limited competition may have influenced the final pricing, though the firm fixed-price structure offers cost certainty. 3. The short duration and specific task order nature suggest a focused, manageable scope. 4. Performance context is limited due to the task order structure, making broad assessment difficult. 5. This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector. 6. The award to a single vendor warrants scrutiny regarding potential missed opportunities for broader market engagement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of approximately $17.75 million for professional development training appears to be within a reasonable range when compared to industry benchmarks for similar services. The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. However, without more detailed performance metrics or a comparison to multiple bids, a definitive assessment of 'excellent' value is challenging. The awarded amount is slightly above the initial bid benchmark of $192,979, which could indicate some negotiation or scope adjustments.

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 bids. However, the data specifies 'no' bidders, which is contradictory to 'full and open competition' and suggests a potential data anomaly or a misunderstanding of the competition field. Assuming the 'no' bidders refers to the number of *other* bidders besides the awardee, this implies a single-bidder scenario within a theoretically open competition, which is a concern for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A single bid in a full and open competition scenario raises concerns about whether the government received the best possible pricing. It suggests that either the market is very small for this specific service, or the solicitation may not have been widely disseminated or attractive to potential competitors, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are Department of the Army personnel receiving professional and management development training. The services delivered are focused on enhancing skills and knowledge for military and civilian staff. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the areas where the training is conducted, primarily Virginia. Workforce implications include improved capabilities and potentially enhanced career progression for service members and civilian employees.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential lack of competitive pressure due to single bid scenario.
Limited transparency on the full range of potential solutions and pricing available in the market.
Risk of vendor lock-in if this becomes a recurring need without re-competition.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
Awarded under a theoretically open competition framework.
Specific task order structure allows for focused service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Professional and Management Development Training sector (NAICS code 611430). This sector includes establishments primarily engaged in providing education and training services, not elsewhere classified. The market size for government training services is substantial, with agencies frequently procuring specialized training to maintain and enhance workforce skills. This contract represents a specific instance of such spending within the broader defense training market.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (sb: false) and the awardee is not designated as a small business (ss: false). There is no information on subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract appears minimal, with no explicit provisions to encourage small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. As a task order under a larger contract vehicle, oversight would focus on adherence to the statement of work, delivery timelines, and quality of services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases, but specific performance reviews and Inspector General involvement would depend on identified issues or audits.

Related Government Programs

Defense Human Resources Activity Training Programs
Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Services
Professional Development Courses for Federal Employees
Management and Leadership Training Contracts

Risk Flags

Single Bidder in Full and Open Competition
Significant Discrepancy Between Award Amount and Benchmark
Limited Performance Data Available for Task Order

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.8 million to COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TASK ORDER 0012 FOR 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 $17.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-26. End: 2009-09-26.

What is the track record of Communication Technologies, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Communication Technologies, Inc. has a history of federal contracting, with this specific award representing a significant task order value. Analyzing their broader contract portfolio, including past performance on similar training or professional development contracts, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise. A review of contract close-out data and any past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS) would be crucial to assess their track record. Without this detailed historical data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their performance consistency and ability to meet DoD requirements effectively across multiple engagements.

How does the awarded amount compare to the initial benchmark or estimated value for this training service?

The awarded amount of $17,754,026.63 is substantially higher than the provided benchmark of $192,979. This significant difference suggests that either the benchmark was for a much smaller scope or a different type of service, or there were substantial changes in scope, market conditions, or negotiation outcomes between the initial estimation and the final award. It is critical to understand what the $192,979 represented – perhaps a preliminary estimate for a smaller component, or a placeholder value. A more accurate comparison would require understanding the original solicitation's estimated value and the basis for the final negotiated price.

What are the specific risks associated with a 'full and open competition' that results in only one bid?

A 'full and open competition' that yields only one bid presents several risks. Primarily, it undermines the core principle of competition, which is intended to drive down prices and encourage innovation. The government may not be receiving the best value if there were no other viable options presented or considered. This situation can indicate potential issues with the solicitation's clarity, reach, or attractiveness to the market. It might also suggest a lack of qualified vendors or a highly specialized niche market. The risk for taxpayers is paying a potentially inflated price due to the absence of competitive pressure, and for the agency, it's the risk of receiving suboptimal services or solutions.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for this specific training requirement?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in managing costs for well-defined requirements where the scope of work is clear and unlikely to change significantly. For professional development training, where the curriculum and delivery methods can be specified, FFP provides cost certainty to the government, shifting the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control their costs efficiently to maximize profit. However, if the training needs evolve or unforeseen complexities arise during delivery, the FFP structure can make scope adjustments difficult and potentially costly if formal change orders are required.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar professional development training within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on professional development training within the Department of the Army is substantial and multifaceted, reflecting the vast size and diverse needs of its personnel. Agencies like the Army consistently procure a wide array of training services, ranging from leadership and management development to technical skills enhancement and specialized operational training. Spending patterns often show a reliance on both large, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for broad requirements and smaller, task-order-based awards for specific needs, like this one. Analyzing past spending data would reveal trends in contractor selection, average contract values, and the prevalence of different contract types used for similar training procurements.

What are the implications of the short contract duration (92 days) on the overall value and effectiveness of the training?

A short contract duration of 92 days suggests a focused, potentially intensive training program rather than a long-term development initiative. For specific skill acquisition or immediate needs, this duration can be effective. It allows for rapid deployment of training resources and quicker realization of benefits. However, it may limit the depth of learning or the ability to foster significant behavioral change that often requires sustained reinforcement over longer periods. The value is derived from meeting a specific, time-bound objective, but its long-term impact on workforce development might be less pronounced compared to longer engagements.

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: $17,754,027

Exercised Options: $17,754,027

Current Obligation: $17,754,027

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912SU07D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline