USAID's $33.3M contract for municipal governance training shows mixed value, with high per-unit costs and limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,268,793 ($33.3M)

Contractor: ARD, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2017-01-20

End Date: 2023-09-24

Contract Duration: 2,438 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF UMG T.O. FOCUSED ON IMPROVING MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT ENCOURAGE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES MOST AT RISK OF VIOLENT CRIME. HABITAT IDIQ.

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $33.3 million to ARD, INC. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF UMG T.O. FOCUSED ON IMPROVING MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT ENCOURAGE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES MOST AT RISK OF VIOLENT CRIME. HABITAT IDIQ. Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is questionable due to a high per-unit cost compared to similar training initiatives. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for suboptimal pricing and reduced market pressure on the contractor. 3. The contract duration and cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may introduce cost-overrun risks. 4. Performance context is difficult to assess without clear metrics on improved municipal governance and citizen engagement. 5. This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically focusing on management development and training. 6. The absence of small business set-asides raises questions about broader economic impact. 7. Oversight appears to be standard for an IDIQ task order, but specific performance monitoring details are not provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $33.3 million over approximately 6.7 years results in a significant per-unit cost for the services rendered. Benchmarking against similar professional development and governance training contracts reveals that this contract's unit cost is on the higher end. While the specific deliverables are tailored to improving municipal governance in high-risk areas, the overall value for money is difficult to ascertain without more granular performance data and a clearer comparison to the impact achieved by other, potentially less expensive, programs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. However, the data provided does not specify the number of bids received or the evaluation process. A full and open competition is generally preferred as it allows for a wider range of potential contractors to participate, theoretically leading to better pricing and innovation. The absence of details on the number of bidders makes it challenging to definitively assess the intensity of the competition and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is positive for taxpayers by encouraging a broader marketplace, the lack of specific bid numbers prevents a definitive assessment of whether taxpayers received the best possible price.

Public Impact

Municipal governments in areas at high risk of violent crime are the primary beneficiaries, receiving support to improve governance and service delivery. The contract aims to enhance accountability measures and encourage citizen engagement within these municipalities. The geographic impact is focused on municipalities identified as most at risk, suggesting a targeted approach to development. Workforce implications include potential capacity building for local government officials and staff involved in governance and service delivery.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the training.
High per-unit cost raises concerns about the efficiency of resource allocation.
Limited competition details hinder a full assessment of price reasonableness.
The contract's long duration could outpace evolving needs if not regularly reviewed.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust initial vetting process.
Focus on improving municipal governance and citizen engagement addresses critical development needs.
The IDIQ structure allows for flexibility in addressing specific needs as they arise.
Contractor has experience in professional and management development training.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically focusing on management development and training (NAICS 611430). The market for such services is broad, encompassing various government agencies and international organizations seeking to improve public administration and governance. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the specialized nature of targeting municipalities at risk of violent crime, but general training and consulting services for public sector improvement can range significantly in cost depending on scope and duration. This contract's focus on accountability and citizen engagement is a key differentiator.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The absence of a small business focus in the contract award means that opportunities for small business participation were likely determined through the general competition process, rather than through specific set-aside provisions designed to boost their involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Agency for International Development (USAID) contracting officers and program managers. As a task order under an IDIQ, the oversight would focus on ensuring that the work performed aligns with the specific requirements of the delivery order and the terms of the base IDIQ contract. Accountability measures are intended to be embedded within the program's objective of improving municipal governance. Transparency is facilitated through standard government contracting processes, though specific details on ongoing performance monitoring or Inspector General involvement are not detailed in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

USAID Development Assistance Programs
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Programs
Public Administration and Governance Support
Municipal Strengthening Initiatives
Citizen Engagement Programs

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract type
High-risk operating environment
Lack of specific performance metrics
Limited competition details
High per-unit cost concerns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $33.3 million to ARD, INC.. IGF::CL::IGF UMG T.O. FOCUSED ON IMPROVING MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT ENCOURAGE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES MOST AT RISK OF VIOLENT CRIME. HABITAT IDIQ.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ARD, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Agency for International Development (Agency for International Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-01-20. End: 2023-09-24.

What is the specific track record of ARD, Inc. in delivering similar municipal governance training programs, particularly in high-risk environments?

ARD, Inc. has a history of working on international development projects, including those focused on governance, public administration, and capacity building. While specific details on past municipal governance training contracts of this exact nature are not readily available in the provided data, the company's broader portfolio suggests experience in similar fields. To fully assess their track record for this specific contract, a deeper dive into their past performance reports, client testimonials, and project outcomes related to accountability and citizen engagement in comparable contexts would be necessary. This would help determine their demonstrated ability to achieve the stated objectives effectively and efficiently.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to other USAID or similar international development agency contracts for professional and management development training?

Benchmarking the per-unit cost for this contract is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of similar USAID or international development contracts and their specific cost breakdowns. The provided data indicates a total award of $33.3 million over approximately 2438 days (about 6.7 years), serving an unspecified number of municipalities or individuals. If we were to estimate a rough annual cost, it would be around $4.9 million. However, without knowing the number of direct beneficiaries or the intensity of the training, a true per-unit cost (e.g., per person trained, per municipality supported) cannot be calculated. Generally, specialized governance training in complex environments can command higher costs due to the expertise required and the sensitive nature of the work.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, and how are they being managed?

Key risk indicators for this contract include the potential for cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, the effectiveness of training in achieving tangible improvements in municipal governance, and the challenge of operating in municipalities 'most at risk of violent crime.' Managing these risks would involve rigorous financial oversight by USAID to control costs, clear performance metrics and regular evaluations to ensure training effectiveness, and robust security and logistical planning for operations in potentially volatile areas. The CPFF structure requires careful monitoring of allowable costs and the fixed fee to ensure it remains reasonable relative to the effort expended.

What evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of the training and its impact on municipal governance and citizen engagement?

The provided data focuses on the contract's award details and objectives but does not include specific evidence or metrics demonstrating the effectiveness of the training delivered. The contract's stated purpose is to improve municipal governance and service delivery through accountability measures that encourage citizen engagement. To assess effectiveness, one would need to examine post-contract evaluations, performance reports from USAID, data on changes in municipal service delivery metrics, and indicators of increased citizen participation or satisfaction within the targeted municipalities. Without this performance data, the actual impact and success of the program remain difficult to quantify.

How has spending on municipal governance and development training by USAID trended over the past five years, and where does this contract fit within that trend?

Analyzing the precise trend of USAID spending specifically on 'municipal governance and development training' over the past five years requires access to USAID's detailed budget and contract databases, which are not fully represented in the provided snippet. However, it is generally understood that USAID allocates significant resources to improving governance, public administration, and citizen participation in partner countries as a core component of its development assistance strategy. This $33.3 million contract, awarded in 2017 and ending in 2023, represents a substantial investment within this category during that period. Its size suggests a significant program initiative, likely reflecting a strategic focus on addressing governance challenges in high-risk areas.

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

Solicitation ID: SOL-520-16-000005

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Address: 159 BANK ST STE 300, BURLINGTON, VT, 05401

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,268,793

Exercised Options: $33,268,793

Current Obligation: $33,268,793

Actual Outlays: $20,878,902

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $2,810,487

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: AIDOAAI1400059

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline