DOE awards $3.8M strategic partnership for clinical training, with a 10-year performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,820,224 ($3.8M)

Contractor: Eagle Harbor, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Energy

Start Date: 2025-02-18

End Date: 2034-07-31

Contract Duration: 3,450 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ESTABLISH TO FOR CLIN 2000 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Place of Performance

Location: KIRTLAND AFB, BERNALILLO County, NEW MEXICO, 87117

State: New Mexico Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Energy obligated $3.8 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC for work described as: ESTABLISH TO FOR CLIN 2000 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP Key points: 1. The contract's long duration suggests a need for sustained support in clinical training. 2. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes performance but requires careful monitoring of costs. 3. The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code indicates a focus on specialized vocational training. 4. The contract was awarded via full and open competition after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate but potentially limited competitive process. 5. The small value relative to typical large federal contracts may indicate a niche or specialized service. 6. The delivery order award type suggests flexibility in tasking and execution over the contract's life.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $3.82 million over approximately 10 years is relatively small for a federal contract of this nature. Benchmarking is difficult without more specific details on the services provided. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure means the final cost will depend on performance, making a direct price comparison challenging. However, the total obligated amount is modest, suggesting potentially good value if the services are effectively delivered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded prior to the solicitation. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes limit the pool of potential bidders and may not represent the broadest possible competition. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to fully assess the impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price that a fully open and unrestricted competition might have yielded.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely personnel within the Department of Energy or its associated facilities requiring specialized clinical training. The services delivered will focus on providing strategic partnership for clinical training, likely involving curriculum development, instruction, and potentially simulation or practical application. The geographic impact is primarily focused on New Mexico, where the contract is managed or where the training will be delivered. Workforce implications include the potential for upskilling or reskilling of personnel through the provided training, enhancing their clinical competencies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential missed opportunities for cost savings.
The CPAF contract type requires diligent oversight to ensure award fees are justified and costs are controlled effectively.
The long performance period (over 10 years) necessitates robust contract management to adapt to evolving training needs and technologies.

Positive Signals

The award signifies a long-term commitment by the Department of Energy to specialized clinical training, indicating a recognized need and strategic importance.
The use of a delivery order award type allows for flexibility in tasking and resource allocation over the contract's lifespan.
The contract's focus on a specific NAICS code suggests a targeted approach to acquiring specialized skills.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically related to educational services (NAICS 611519). The market for specialized technical and vocational training is diverse, serving various government and private sector needs. Federal spending in this area often supports workforce development, specialized skill acquisition, and compliance training. The value of this particular contract is modest, suggesting it addresses a niche requirement rather than a broad training initiative.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation is not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) field is false and the 'sb' (small business) field is also false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the prime contractor, EAGLE HARBOR, LLC, is not obligated to meet specific small business subcontracting goals under this award, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract's execution.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of Energy's contracting and program officials. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, performance monitoring and evaluation will be critical to determining award fee amounts, ensuring accountability. Transparency regarding the specific metrics for award fees and the justification for awarded amounts would be important for public understanding. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Energy Workforce Development Programs
Federal Clinical Training Initiatives
Specialized Technical Education Contracts
Government-Wide Training and Education Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Potential for cost creep in CPAF structure.
Risk of training obsolescence over long performance period.
Lack of specified small business subcontracting goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Energy awarded $3.8 million to EAGLE HARBOR, LLC. ESTABLISH TO FOR CLIN 2000 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EAGLE HARBOR, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-02-18. End: 2034-07-31.

What is the specific nature of the 'clinical training' being provided under this strategic partnership?

The provided data indicates the NAICS code is 611519, 'Other Technical and Trade Schools.' This suggests the training is vocational or specialized, rather than medical clinical training in a healthcare setting. It likely pertains to skills required for technical roles within the Department of Energy or related industries that may involve hands-on procedures or operational competencies. Without further details from the contract statement of work, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact subject matter, but it is focused on technical and trade skills rather than direct patient care.

How does the $3.82 million contract value compare to similar federal spending on technical and trade school services?

The $3.82 million contract value over a 10-year period is relatively modest for federal training contracts. Many federal agencies procure large-scale training solutions that can reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. However, this contract's value is more aligned with specialized, niche training requirements or smaller-scale, geographically focused programs. Benchmarking against specific technical and trade school services requires detailed analysis of the Statement of Work, but generally, this appears to be a smaller, targeted investment.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure for this type of training service?

The primary risk with a CPAF contract is the potential for cost overruns if performance metrics are not clearly defined or if the contractor inflates costs to maximize award fees. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure that award fees are genuinely earned based on exceptional performance and not simply a mechanism to increase the total contract cost. For training services, defining objective performance metrics that accurately reflect the quality and effectiveness of the training can be challenging, increasing the risk of subjective evaluations influencing award fees.

What does 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' imply for the competitive landscape and taxpayer value?

This procurement method suggests that the agency initially considered all sources but then excluded certain ones before proceeding with the competition. The reasons for exclusion are not specified but could be due to pre-existing relationships, specific technical requirements that only a subset of vendors could meet, or other strategic considerations. While it aims for competition, excluding sources inherently limits the number of potential bidders. This could potentially lead to less aggressive pricing than a truly unrestricted full and open competition, meaning taxpayers might not achieve the absolute lowest price possible.

What is EAGLE HARBOR, LLC's track record with Department of Energy contracts, particularly in training or technical services?

Information regarding EAGLE HARBOR, LLC's specific track record with the Department of Energy, especially concerning training or technical services, is not provided in the given data. A comprehensive assessment would require accessing contract databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) to review their past performance, contract history, and any reported performance issues or successes with the DOE or other federal agencies. Without this external data, it's impossible to evaluate their suitability or past performance on similar contracts.

How might the long performance period (ending 2034) impact the relevance and effectiveness of the training provided?

A long performance period, such as the one ending in July 2034, presents both opportunities and risks for training relevance. On the positive side, it allows for a sustained partnership and the development of deep expertise. However, it also carries the risk that the training content or methods could become outdated due to rapid technological advancements or evolving industry standards. Effective contract management will be essential to ensure the curriculum is regularly reviewed and updated to maintain its relevance and effectiveness throughout the contract's duration.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Other Technical and Trade Schools

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2702 DENALI ST STE 100, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,213,698

Exercised Options: $5,268,693

Current Obligation: $3,820,224

Actual Outlays: $1,400,021

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 89303024DEA000010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline