OPM's $21M training contract awarded to Allen Corp. of America without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,084,026 ($21.1M)

Contractor: Allen Corporation of America, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Start Date: 2014-09-18

End Date: 2017-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,108 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF TRAINING

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20415

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Office of Personnel Management obligated $21.1 million to ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF TRAINING Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating defined scope and cost. 2. The contract duration of 1108 days suggests a substantial, ongoing training requirement. 3. Sole-source award raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market alternatives. 4. The training category is 'Professional and Management Development', vital for federal workforce. 5. Geographic location of the awardee is Washington D.C., aligning with federal agencies. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, suggesting the primary contractor is not an SMB.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $21 million training contract is challenging without comparable sole-source awards for similar services. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, but the lack of competition means there was no direct price comparison to ensure optimal value. Without a competitive process, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects market rates or if alternative, potentially more cost-effective solutions were overlooked. The absence of competition limits the ability to assess if the government secured the best possible price for the training services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) likely justified this approach based on specific circumstances, such as a unique capability of Allen Corporation of America or a critical need that precluded a lengthy competitive process. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that typically arise from a bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's ability to ensure it is receiving the most economical service.

Public Impact

Federal employees, particularly managers and professionals, are the primary beneficiaries of the training services. The contract supports the development of essential skills and competencies within the federal workforce. The geographic impact is primarily within Washington D.C., where the awardee is located and likely where training is delivered. Workforce implications include enhanced professional development opportunities for federal employees, potentially leading to improved government efficiency and effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than a competed contract.
Sole-source awards can limit the government's access to innovative solutions from a wider market.
Transparency concerns arise due to the absence of a competitive bidding process.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awardee has a contract with the government, indicating some level of established relationship or capability.
Training services are critical for federal workforce development, aligning with agency missions.

Sector Analysis

The federal training and development sector is a significant market, encompassing a wide range of services from leadership and management courses to technical skills enhancement. This contract for professional and management development training fits within the broader professional services category. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish for sole-source awards, but the overall federal spending on training is substantial, reflecting the government's commitment to continuous workforce improvement. The market includes numerous private sector providers, making the sole-source nature of this award notable.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award to Allen Corporation of America, Inc., a firm not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data, suggests that the primary focus was on fulfilling the training requirement rather than specifically promoting small business participation. This means the direct economic benefits to the small business ecosystem from this particular contract are likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Office of Personnel Management's contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, scrutiny might be higher to ensure the justification for non-competition was sound and that the services delivered meet the contract's objectives. Transparency is limited due to the lack of a competitive process, making it harder for the public to assess value. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Employee Training Programs
Professional Development Services
Management Training Contracts
Government Workforce Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competition
Potential for higher costs without competitive bidding
Limited transparency in procurement process

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Office of Personnel Management awarded $21.1 million to ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.. IGF::CL::IGF TRAINING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Office of Personnel Management (Office of Personnel Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-18. End: 2017-09-30.

What is the track record of Allen Corporation of America, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in training services?

Allen Corporation of America, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts. While the provided data highlights this specific $21 million training contract, a comprehensive review would involve examining their contract history across various agencies and contract types. Their performance on past contracts, including delivery timeliness, quality of services, and adherence to budget, would be crucial indicators of their reliability and capability. For this specific contract, the duration (over 1100 days) and the firm-fixed-price nature suggest a sustained service delivery. Further analysis would require accessing contract performance reports and past performance evaluations, if publicly available, to gauge their overall track record in fulfilling government requirements.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar training services procured competitively by the government?

Direct price comparison is difficult for this sole-source contract. Typically, competitive bidding allows agencies to solicit multiple proposals and select the offer that represents the best value, often leading to more favorable pricing. Without competition, it's challenging to benchmark the $21 million cost against what Allen Corporation of America, Inc. might have offered in a bidding scenario, or what other firms would have charged. To assess value, one would need to identify comparable training contracts awarded competitively by OPM or other agencies for similar professional and management development services, analyze their per-participant costs or overall contract values relative to scope, and then evaluate if this sole-source award's pricing deviates significantly from those benchmarks. The absence of competition inherently limits the ability to confirm cost-effectiveness.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding a large training contract on a sole-source basis?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude ($21 million) include potential overpayment due to the lack of competitive pressure to achieve lower prices, and the risk of receiving suboptimal service quality if the contractor is not incentivized by market forces. There's also a risk of limited innovation, as the government may not be exposed to a wider array of training methodologies or technologies offered by other potential providers. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in government procurement, potentially leading to perceptions of favoritism or missed opportunities for other capable vendors, including small businesses. Ensuring robust contract oversight and performance management becomes even more critical in such cases.

How effective has Allen Corporation of America, Inc. been in delivering professional and management development training under this contract?

Assessing the effectiveness of Allen Corporation of America, Inc.'s delivery under this specific contract requires access to performance metrics and feedback mechanisms that are not detailed in the provided data. Key indicators of effectiveness would include participant satisfaction surveys, demonstrated improvements in employee skills or performance post-training, and whether the training objectives outlined in the contract were met. Given the contract's duration and value, OPM would likely have internal mechanisms for monitoring performance, such as regular progress reports, quality assurance reviews, and potentially end-of-contract evaluations. Without these specific performance data points, a definitive assessment of effectiveness cannot be made solely from the contract award information.

What has been the historical spending trend for professional and management development training at OPM?

The provided data only details a single contract award of $21 million to Allen Corporation of America, Inc. for training services. To understand historical spending trends for professional and management development training at OPM, a broader analysis of OPM's procurement history over several fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve identifying all contracts related to training, categorizing them by service type (e.g., management, technical, leadership), and summing their values annually. Examining these trends would reveal whether OPM's investment in training has increased, decreased, or remained stable, and whether sole-source awards have been a common practice for these services or if competitive procurements have historically dominated.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10400 EATON PL STE 450, FAIRFAX, VA, 22030

Business Categories: Category Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,084,326

Exercised Options: $21,084,326

Current Obligation: $21,084,026

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: OPM1912C0034

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline