Army Working Capital Fund contract for staff development awarded to CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC for over $16.3 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,360,337 ($16.4M)

Contractor: Calibre Systems Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2020-02-10

End Date: 2025-08-09

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $16.4 million to CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC for work described as: ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT Key points: 1. Contract focuses on professional and management development training, a critical area for workforce efficiency. 2. The contract duration extends over five years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 3. Awarded under a firm-fixed-price structure, which shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The training services are categorized under NAICS code 611430, aligning with industry standards for educational services. 5. This contract represents a significant investment in human capital development within the Army. 6. The geographic scope is Alabama, suggesting a localized but substantial training initiative.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of over $16.3 million for five years of staff development and performance improvement training appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar large-scale training contracts for federal agencies suggests that pricing for comprehensive programs can range significantly, but this award falls within expected parameters for specialized professional development. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the contractor can deliver effectively within the agreed budget.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. With two bids received, the competition level suggests a moderate level of interest from the market. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bids would typically lead to more robust price discovery and potentially more competitive pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with two bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging competitive pricing and ensuring that the government receives services from qualified vendors at a fair market value.

Public Impact

Army personnel in Alabama will benefit from enhanced professional and management skills. Services delivered include training programs aimed at improving staff performance and development. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama, where the training will be conducted. Workforce implications include upskilling of Army staff, potentially leading to increased operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope of work expands beyond initial projections.
Risk of contractor underperformance if training quality does not meet expectations.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical function like staff development.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process.
Long-term contract duration allows for sustained development initiatives.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a vital component of the broader professional services industry. This contract falls under the educational services sub-sector, specifically focusing on training for government personnel. The market for government training services is substantial, with agencies consistently investing in workforce development to maintain operational readiness and efficiency. Comparable spending benchmarks for large federal training contracts can vary widely based on specialization, duration, and number of personnel trained, but this contract's value is consistent with significant, multi-year training initiatives.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by the 'sb' field being false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this contract are likely limited to subcontracting roles, if any are offered by the prime contractor, CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC. The impact on the small business ecosystem is minimal unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for specialized training delivery or support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting agency (General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service) and the Army entity utilizing the services. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified training outcomes. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if performance issues or potential fraud are identified.

Related Government Programs

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
Defense Acquisition University
Federal Workforce Development Programs
Professional Development Training Services

Risk Flags

Contract duration exceeds typical short-term training needs.
Limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition.
Geographic concentration in Alabama may limit broader applicability or scalability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $16.4 million to CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC. ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-02-10. End: 2025-08-09.

What is the track record of CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC in delivering similar staff development and performance improvement training to federal agencies?

CALIBRE SYSTEMS INC has a history of providing professional services, including training and human capital solutions, to various government agencies. Their experience often encompasses areas like organizational development, leadership training, and performance management. To assess their specific track record for this contract, a review of past performance evaluations, contract awards, and client feedback related to similar projects would be necessary. This would involve examining whether they have successfully managed large-scale training programs, met client objectives, and adhered to budget and schedule requirements in previous engagements. Their ability to secure this contract suggests they met the government's criteria for experience and capability in staff development and performance improvement.

How does the per-person training cost under this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar professional development programs?

Determining the precise per-person training cost requires detailed information on the number of individuals to be trained, the duration and intensity of each training module, and the specific curriculum. Without these granular details, a direct comparison to industry benchmarks is challenging. However, the total contract value of over $16.3 million spread over potentially thousands of Army personnel suggests a significant investment. General benchmarks for professional development courses can range from a few hundred dollars for short workshops to several thousand dollars for intensive, multi-day leadership programs. The firm-fixed-price nature implies the contractor has factored these costs into their bid. A detailed cost-benefit analysis would be needed to fully assess value for money.

What are the primary performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this training contract?

While specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical performance metrics for staff development and performance improvement training contracts include participant satisfaction surveys, pre- and post-training assessments to measure knowledge gain, observed changes in on-the-job performance, and the achievement of specific learning objectives outlined in the training curriculum. The government would likely track metrics related to the contractor's adherence to the training schedule, the quality of instructors and materials, and the overall effectiveness of the training in enhancing employee skills and productivity. Successful completion of these KPIs would be crucial for contractor performance evaluations and potential future contract awards.

What is the historical spending pattern for staff development and performance improvement training within the Army or relevant branches?

Historical spending on staff development and performance improvement training within the Army, and the Department of Defense broadly, is substantial and generally consistent, reflecting the continuous need for a skilled and adaptable workforce. Agencies like the Army Working Capital Fund allocate significant resources annually to training initiatives, encompassing everything from basic skills enhancement to advanced leadership and specialized technical training. Spending patterns can fluctuate based on strategic priorities, budget allocations, and evolving operational requirements. This contract, valued at over $16.3 million, represents a notable, multi-year investment that aligns with the ongoing commitment to personnel development within the military.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source or limited competition award for critical training services, and how does this contract mitigate them?

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' not sole-source or limited competition, which inherently mitigates risks associated with restricted vendor pools. Full and open competition generally leads to better price discovery, wider access to innovative solutions, and increased accountability due to a larger base of potential bidders. Risks in any training contract include ensuring the quality and relevance of the training, contractor performance, and alignment with evolving organizational needs. By competing the contract, the government has the opportunity to select the most capable and cost-effective provider, and the firm-fixed-price structure places the financial risk of delivery on the contractor, incentivizing efficient performance.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6361 WALKER LN, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22310

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,158,463

Exercised Options: $18,361,425

Current Obligation: $16,360,337

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS02Q16DCR0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline