Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $21.4M contract for professional development training by Defense Contract Management Agency

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,416,010 ($21.4M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-10-01

End Date: 2018-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF LOT I- BASE PERIOD

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.4 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF LOT I- BASE PERIOD Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries inherent risk. 3. The duration of 1825 days (5 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430 points to a focus on professional and management development training. 5. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 6. The contract was awarded by the Defense Contract Management Agency, a component of the Department of Defense. 7. The contract was awarded in Virginia, indicating a specific geographic focus for service delivery or administration.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit, but the cost-reimbursement aspect means the government bears the risk of actual costs incurred. Comparing this to similar professional development training contracts would require access to detailed pricing structures and service delivery outcomes. The total award amount of $21.4 million over five years suggests a significant investment in personnel development.

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 a bid. The presence of 8 bidders (no) suggests a reasonably competitive environment for this type of service. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. However, the specific nature of specialized professional development training might limit the pool of highly qualified and competitive bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices and encouraging high-quality service delivery. The competition level here suggests a fair market approach was taken.

Public Impact

Personnel within the Department of Defense, specifically those managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, are the primary beneficiaries of this training. The services delivered focus on professional and management development, aiming to enhance the skills and capabilities of military and civilian personnel. The contract's geographic impact is likely concentrated around the Defense Contract Management Agency's operational areas, with potential for broader application across DoD facilities. Workforce implications include the upskilling and professional growth of DoD employees, potentially leading to improved operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The long duration of the contract may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing training needs.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant period could limit exposure to innovative training methods from other providers.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
The fixed fee component provides a degree of cost predictability for the government.
The contract addresses a critical need for professional development within a key defense agency.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant market within the broader professional services industry. Government agencies, particularly large ones like the Department of Defense, are substantial clients for these services, investing heavily in workforce development to maintain operational readiness and expertise. This contract fits within the government's ongoing efforts to ensure its personnel are equipped with the latest management and technical skills. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale training contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar professional development programs.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of small business set-asides for this contract (sb: false). Booz Allen Hamilton is a large business. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist if Booz Allen Hamilton chooses to engage them for specific training modules or support services, but this is not guaranteed by the contract terms. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting occurs.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) contracting officers and administrative contracting officers. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards outlined in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, including adherence to the fixed fee and management of reimbursable costs. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed cost breakdowns and performance reports may be restricted. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

DoD Training and Education Programs
Professional Services Contracts
Management Consulting Services
Federal Workforce Development Initiatives

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight.
Long contract duration may limit adaptability to evolving needs.
Potential for contractor performance degradation over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.4 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. IGF::OT::IGF LOT I- BASE PERIOD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-10-01. End: 2018-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for professional development training by the Defense Contract Management Agency?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for professional development training by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) requires access to detailed procurement data over multiple fiscal years. Without specific DCMA budget allocations for training or a history of their training contracts, it's difficult to establish a precise pattern. However, it is reasonable to assume that as a large component of the Department of Defense, DCMA invests consistently in its personnel's professional growth to manage complex defense contracts effectively. This investment likely fluctuates based on strategic priorities, personnel turnover, and the evolving needs of the defense acquisition landscape. The $21.4 million awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton over five years suggests a significant and sustained commitment to training, potentially indicating an increase or continuation of previous investment levels in this area.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure impact the value proposition for the government in this contract?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure aims to balance cost control with contractor incentive. In this structure, the government agrees to reimburse the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing the contractor's profit. For the government, the primary benefit is that the contractor has a strong incentive to control costs, as the fee remains constant regardless of the actual costs incurred. This can be advantageous for complex projects where cost estimation is difficult. However, the government assumes the risk of cost overruns if actual costs exceed initial projections. The value proposition hinges on effective oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable, and that the fixed fee is commensurate with the effort and risk involved. Without detailed performance data and cost audits, it's challenging to definitively assess the value compared to other contract types like Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) or Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF).

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with similar government training contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton has a substantial and well-documented track record of performing large-scale professional services and training contracts for various U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their extensive experience encompasses a wide range of services, from strategic consulting and management development to specialized technical training. Given their position as a major government contractor, it is highly probable they have executed numerous contracts similar in scope and nature to this $21.4 million professional development training award. Their past performance evaluations, available through government contract databases (like the Federal Procurement Data System - FPDS), would provide specific insights into their success rates, client satisfaction, and adherence to contract terms on previous engagements. This history suggests a high likelihood of capability and reliability in fulfilling the requirements of this contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a 5-year contract for professional development training?

A 5-year contract for professional development training, while providing stability, carries several potential risks. Firstly, the training landscape and the specific skill requirements within the Department of Defense can evolve rapidly. A long-term contract might not be agile enough to incorporate the latest methodologies, technologies, or emerging skill needs, potentially leading to outdated training content. Secondly, locking in a single provider for an extended period could stifle innovation and prevent the government from benefiting from potentially more cost-effective or cutting-edge solutions offered by other firms that emerge or adapt over time. Thirdly, performance degradation is a risk; a contractor's quality or responsiveness might decline over a long engagement if oversight is not consistently rigorous. Finally, changes in government priorities or budget constraints could render the contracted services less relevant or affordable, leading to contract modifications or terminations.

How does the 'Professional and Management Development Training' NAICS code (611430) compare to other government training expenditures?

The NAICS code 611430, 'Professional and Management Development Training,' specifically categorizes establishments primarily engaged in providing instruction and training in a wide range of professional and managerial skills. This includes areas like business management, human resources, and leadership development. Government spending under this code represents a significant portion of overall federal training expenditures, which also encompass technical skills training, safety training, and specialized operational training often falling under different NAICS codes or service categories. Compared to broader categories like IT training or defense-specific technical skills, professional and management development focuses more on the 'soft skills' and strategic competencies essential for effective leadership and organizational management. Federal agencies across the board utilize services under 611430 to enhance the capabilities of their civilian and military workforces, making it a consistently important area of procurement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Business Schools and Computer and Management Training › Professional and Management Development Training

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0018913RZ018

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,462,274

Exercised Options: $22,462,274

Current Obligation: $21,416,010

Actual Outlays: $1,442

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline