Development & Training Services, Inc. contract for administrative management consulting services valued at over $10.7 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,783,907 ($10.8M)

Contractor: Development & Training Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2004-09-29

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,827 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.9K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ADD BEARING POINT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR. NEW TASK ORDER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $10.8 million to DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING SERVICES, INC. for work described as: ADD BEARING POINT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR. NEW TASK ORDER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH Key points: 1. The contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market alternatives. 2. The duration of the contract (over 5 years) suggests a significant, long-term need for the services provided. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), which can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611 indicates a focus on general management consulting. 5. The contract was awarded by the Agency for International Development (USAID), suggesting a focus on international development projects. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Development & Training Services, Inc., indicating limited competition.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure warrants scrutiny, as it can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. Without benchmark data for similar administrative management and general management consulting services for international development, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The lack of competition further complicates a direct value assessment, as there was no market pressure to drive down prices. The total value of over $10.7 million over five years suggests a substantial investment, and closer examination of the cost components and deliverables would be necessary to confirm its reasonableness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not subject to a broad solicitation process. This approach is typically used when a specific vendor possesses unique capabilities or when urgency dictates a rapid award. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no direct price competition, potentially leading to higher costs for the government than if the contract had been competed. The rationale for this sole-source award would need to be clearly documented to ensure it was justified and in the government's best interest.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage market competition to secure the best possible pricing, potentially resulting in taxpayers paying more for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Agency for International Development (USAID) and its international development programs, which receive administrative and management consulting support. The services delivered are focused on administrative management and general management consulting, crucial for the effective execution of development initiatives. The geographic impact is likely international, aligning with USAID's mission to support developing countries and promote global progress. Workforce implications could include support for USAID staff in managing complex projects, improving operational efficiency, and achieving program objectives.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
Long contract duration (over 5 years) requires sustained oversight to ensure continued value and relevance.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification process could mask inefficiencies or missed opportunities for better pricing.

Positive Signals

The contract supports critical administrative functions for the Agency for International Development, contributing to program effectiveness.
The long duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for specialized consulting services, indicating a potentially reliable partnership.
The vendor, Development & Training Services, Inc., has secured a significant contract, implying a level of trust and capability recognized by the agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. This sector is vital for government operations, providing expertise that agencies may lack internally. The market for such services is competitive, but specific niche expertise or existing relationships can lead to non-competitive awards. Benchmarking spending in this category requires comparing contract values and service scopes for similar consulting engagements within government, which can be challenging due to the bespoke nature of many consulting projects.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a small business set-aside. The prime contractor, Development & Training Services, Inc., is likely a larger entity, and the absence of a small business set-aside means opportunities for small business participation through subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's own procurement practices and policies.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officers and program managers at the Agency for International Development (USAID). As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle (though the parent vehicle is not specified), oversight would involve monitoring performance against the statement of work, reviewing costs incurred, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

USAID Administrative Support Contracts
Management and Consulting Services for Federal Agencies
International Development Program Support
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts
Sole-Source Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data
Limited transparency on sole-source justification

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $10.8 million to DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING SERVICES, INC.. ADD BEARING POINT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR. NEW TASK ORDER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING SERVICES, 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 $10.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-29. End: 2009-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'economic growth' support provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611) and mentions 'ECONOMIC GROWTH' as a bearing point. While the exact nature of the economic growth support is not detailed, it likely involves providing expert advice and strategic planning to the Agency for International Development (USAID) on how to foster economic development in recipient countries. This could encompass areas such as policy analysis, institutional capacity building, private sector development strategies, trade promotion, and investment climate improvement. The 'ADD BEARING POINT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR' note suggests that Development & Training Services, Inc. may be leveraging specialized expertise from another entity to deliver these economic growth-related consulting services.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types for similar services?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is significant uncertainty in the costs involved, such as in research and development or complex consulting projects. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers less cost certainty for the government, as actual costs can fluctuate. However, it can be advantageous when innovation or flexibility is paramount. For administrative and management consulting, FFP contracts are often preferred when the scope is well-defined, as they provide greater cost predictability. The choice of CPFF here suggests that USAID anticipated significant cost variability or a need for flexibility in the consulting services provided over the contract's five-year duration.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for administrative consulting services?

Sole-source awards, like the one made to Development & Training Services, Inc., carry several potential risks. Primarily, the absence of competition can lead to inflated prices, as the government does not benefit from market forces driving cost efficiency. There's also a risk that the chosen contractor may not be the most innovative or best-suited provider, as alternatives were not formally evaluated. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process. Without a competitive bidding process, it can be harder to ensure that the government is receiving the best possible value and that the selection was based solely on merit and necessity. This necessitates robust internal oversight and justification to mitigate these risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for administrative management and general management consulting services by the Agency for International Development?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for administrative management and general management consulting services by USAID is crucial for context. While specific historical data for this exact contract or vendor isn't provided, USAID, as a major development agency, consistently procures a wide range of consulting services to support its global mission. This includes strategic planning, program evaluation, organizational development, and technical assistance. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on agency priorities, budget allocations, and the complexity of ongoing development initiatives. Understanding past spending levels, contract durations, and the types of services procured can help benchmark the current $10.7 million contract against previous investments and identify any significant deviations or trends.

What is the track record of Development & Training Services, Inc. in delivering similar consulting services to federal agencies?

The track record of Development & Training Services, Inc. (DTS) in delivering similar administrative management and general management consulting services is a key factor in assessing this contract. While the provided data confirms DTS secured this $10.7 million contract, it does not detail their past performance history. A thorough analysis would require examining DTS's contract portfolio, including past performance evaluations, client feedback, and any history of contract disputes or awards. Agencies typically rely on past performance information during source selection, especially for sole-source awards where the justification often hinges on the contractor's unique qualifications and proven ability to meet requirements. Without this specific performance data, it's difficult to fully gauge DTS's reliability and expertise in this domain.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1100 N GLEBE RD STE 1070, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $49,415,568

Exercised Options: $48,282,721

Current Obligation: $10,783,907

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: AIDGEWI000200018

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline