State Department awards $22.8M for overseas training, with limited competition and unclear value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,852,414 ($22.9M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2016-09-30

Contract Duration: 638 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $22.9 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, raising concerns about price discovery and potential overpayment. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher costs compared to a fully competed contract. 3. The contract's duration of 638 days (over 1.5 years) for training services warrants scrutiny of its necessity and scope. 4. Lack of disclosed domestic awardees makes it difficult to assess the contractor's qualifications and past performance. 5. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 6. The specific NAICS code (611430) indicates professional and management development training, a common service with many potential providers.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of disclosed awardee information and the non-competitive nature of the award. Without comparable bids or market research, it's difficult to ascertain if the $22.8 million price represents a fair market value for the professional and management development training services provided. The CPFF structure also introduces risk, as it may not align with best value principles if cost controls are insufficient. Further analysis of the specific training modules and their necessity would be required for a more definitive assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, indicating a sole-source or limited competition procurement. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically ensures a wider range of offers and potentially lower prices. The absence of multiple bidders means the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive environment. The rationale for this sole-source award is not provided, making it difficult to assess if it was justified by unique capabilities or urgent needs.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government may not secure the most economical option. It also limits opportunities for other qualified businesses to compete for federal contracts.

Public Impact

Department of State personnel stationed overseas are the primary beneficiaries, receiving professional and management development training. The training aims to enhance the skills and effectiveness of diplomatic and other State Department staff operating in foreign environments. Geographic impact is global, covering personnel deployed to various overseas posts. Workforce implications include improved leadership, management, and operational capabilities within the State Department's international workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and suboptimal value for taxpayer funds.
The CPFF contract type can lead to cost escalations if not rigorously managed.
Absence of disclosed awardee details hinders assessment of contractor qualifications and past performance.
The broad scope of 'Professional and Management Development Training' could be subject to scope creep without clear performance metrics.
The contract duration of over 1.5 years for training services warrants scrutiny regarding its necessity and potential for obsolescence.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a critical need for ongoing professional development for overseas personnel, essential for effective diplomatic operations.
The State Department is investing in its workforce, which can lead to improved service delivery and operational efficiency.
The training likely aligns with specific State Department strategic objectives and competency frameworks.
The fixed fee component in the CPFF contract provides some level of cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant market within the broader professional services industry. Federal agencies, particularly those with large overseas operations like the Department of State, frequently procure such services to enhance employee skills and leadership capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific training content and delivery methods, but agencies often spend millions annually on workforce development. This contract fits within the government's ongoing efforts to maintain a highly skilled and adaptable federal workforce.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. The award was made on a sole-source basis, which typically does not involve subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless specified by the prime contractor. Without details on the prime awardee, it's impossible to assess any potential subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers. Given the sole-source nature and the CPFF structure, rigorous oversight is crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and that the training delivered meets the specified objectives. Transparency is limited due to the lack of disclosed awardee information and the non-competitive award justification. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Training Programs
Overseas Operations Support
Federal Workforce Development
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of disclosed awardee
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Long contract duration for training services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $22.9 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2016-09-30.

What specific training modules and services were included in this $22.8 million contract, and how were they tailored to the needs of overseas State Department personnel?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Professional and Management Development Training' under NAICS code 611430. However, the specific modules, curriculum, delivery methods (e.g., in-person, online, blended), and the exact tailoring to overseas personnel needs are not detailed in the available information. This level of specificity is crucial for assessing the contract's relevance and effectiveness. Without this granular detail, it's difficult to determine if the training directly addresses the unique challenges and requirements of operating in diverse international environments. Further documentation from the Department of State would be necessary to understand the precise scope of services procured and how they align with the agency's mission objectives for its overseas workforce.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source (not competed) basis, and what justification was provided?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. Federal procurement regulations typically require agencies to compete contracts to ensure fair and reasonable pricing and to provide opportunities for a wide range of vendors. Awarding a contract on a sole-source basis is an exception, usually justified by specific circumstances such as the existence of only one responsible source, an urgent and compelling need, or a national security requirement. The specific justification for this Department of State contract is not provided in the data. Without this rationale, it is impossible to evaluate whether the non-competitive award was appropriate and in the best interest of the government and taxpayers. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential inefficiencies or missed opportunities for better value.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type potentially impact cost control and value for money in this training contract?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type involves the government reimbursing the contractor for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While the fixed fee provides some cost certainty, the 'cost-plus' element means the government bears the risk of cost overruns. If the contractor's actual costs exceed estimates, the government pays those higher costs. This structure can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs if not meticulously monitored, as their fee remains constant. For a training contract valued at $22.8 million over 638 days, robust oversight by the Department of State is essential to scrutinize all claimed costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable to the contract, and verify that the training delivered provides genuine value for the fixed fee earned by the contractor.

What is the typical market rate or average cost for similar professional and management development training services procured by federal agencies?

Determining a precise 'market rate' for professional and management development training is complex due to the wide variation in services, duration, delivery methods, and contractor expertise. However, federal agencies commonly procure such training. For large-scale, multi-year contracts like this one, costs can range significantly. Without knowing the specific content, number of personnel trained, and delivery modalities (e.g., online vs. in-person, domestic vs. overseas delivery), a direct comparison is difficult. Generally, contracts for specialized leadership or management training can command higher prices. The non-competitive nature of this award further complicates benchmarking, as there is no direct price comparison from other bidders. A thorough review of the Statement of Work and potentially a comparison with other agency training contracts of similar scope would be needed for a more accurate assessment.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a large training contract to an undisclosed domestic awardee?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude ($22.8 million) to an undisclosed domestic awardee presents several risks. Firstly, it hinders transparency and accountability, making it difficult for the public and oversight bodies to assess the contractor's qualifications, past performance, and financial stability. Without knowing the awardee, it's impossible to verify if they possess the specialized expertise required for overseas training or if they have a history of successful contract performance. Secondly, the lack of transparency surrounding the awardee can raise questions about the fairness of the procurement process, especially given the non-competitive nature. This opacity makes it challenging to conduct due diligence and ensure that the selected contractor is the most capable and cost-effective option for the government.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,192,298

Exercised Options: $25,192,298

Current Obligation: $22,852,414

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline