State Department spent $46.2M on overseas training, awarded via sole-source contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $46,198,495 ($46.2M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2016-02-29

Contract Duration: 424 days

Daily Burn Rate: $109.0K/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 $46.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded without competition, raising questions about price discovery and potential for overpayment. 2. Training services focused on professional and management development, with an undisclosed domestic awardee. 3. The contract duration of 424 days suggests a focused, short-term training initiative. 4. Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 5. The absence of small business participation is noted, with no set-aside or subcontracting reported. 6. Spending on overseas training indicates a focus on supporting personnel operating abroad.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value for this specific contract is challenging due to the lack of disclosed awardee and detailed service descriptions. However, the $46.2 million expenditure for professional and management development training over approximately 14 months warrants scrutiny. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to ascertain if the price reflects fair market value. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, while offering flexibility, also carries inherent risks of increased costs if not managed diligently.

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. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source can provide the required services. However, the rationale for this sole-source determination is not detailed here. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially limiting price negotiation and innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also limits opportunities for a wider range of vendors, including small businesses, to secure government contracts.

Public Impact

Personnel operating overseas likely benefited from enhanced professional and management skills. The services delivered were focused on training and development, aiming to improve workforce capabilities. Geographic impact is primarily overseas, supporting the State Department's global operations. Workforce implications include upskilling of employees involved in professional and management roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can lead to cost escalations without robust oversight.
Undisclosed awardee makes it difficult to assess contractor's past performance and suitability.
No small business participation or subcontracting reported, missing opportunities to support small businesses.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses a specific need for overseas professional and management development training.
The definitive contract structure provides a clear framework for the services to be rendered.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant component of government spending, aimed at enhancing the skills and effectiveness of federal employees. This contract falls within the broader professional services category. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the training content and delivery methods, but government-wide spending on training and development is substantial.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include any small business set-aside provisions, nor is there any indication of subcontracting to small businesses. This represents a missed opportunity to engage the small business sector in providing these essential training services. The absence of small business participation suggests that the focus was solely on fulfilling the training requirement through a non-competitive award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, robust oversight would be critical to ensure that costs are reasonable and that the services delivered meet the government's needs effectively. Transparency is limited due to the undisclosed awardee and the non-competitive nature of the award.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Undisclosed awardee
Cost-plus contract type
Lack of small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $46.2 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 $46.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2016-02-29.

What specific professional and management development training was provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Professional and Management Development Training' (NAICS 611430) for overseas operations. However, the specific curriculum, delivery methods (e.g., in-person, online, workshops), and the precise skills or knowledge areas covered are not detailed. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to fully assess the relevance and effectiveness of the training provided. Typically, such training could encompass leadership skills, cross-cultural communication, project management, strategic planning, or specific technical management competencies relevant to the State Department's foreign affairs mission.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and classified as 'sole-source'. Government regulations permit sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or resources required, or in cases of urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible. Without further documentation or justification from the Department of State, the precise reason for this sole-source determination remains unknown. This lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions, negotiate pricing, and potentially identify more cost-effective providers.

What is the track record of the undisclosed awardee for similar training services?

The awardee for this $46.2 million contract is listed as 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'. Consequently, it is impossible to assess the contractor's track record, past performance, or suitability for providing professional and management development training. This lack of transparency regarding the awardee is a significant concern, as it prevents a thorough evaluation of the contractor's experience, quality of service, and reliability. In a competitive environment, past performance is a critical evaluation factor.

How does the $46.2 million expenditure compare to typical spending on similar overseas training initiatives?

Direct comparison of the $46.2 million expenditure is difficult without more granular data on the scope, duration, and specific services rendered, as well as the number of personnel trained. However, for a 14-month period (January 2015 - February 2016), this represents a substantial investment. The Department of State, like other agencies with significant overseas presences, invests heavily in training to ensure its personnel are equipped for complex international environments. Benchmarking would ideally involve comparing this cost against similar contracts for overseas professional and management training, considering factors like the trainee-to-instructor ratio, course intensity, and geographic locations.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this service?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, used here, means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. The primary risk is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as they are assured of cost reimbursement. If the government's oversight and cost accounting surveillance are insufficient, the total cost to the government could exceed initial estimates. The fixed fee, however, provides some predictability regarding the contractor's profit margin. Effective management requires rigorous monitoring of expenditures and adherence to the contract's scope.

What was the historical spending pattern for overseas training by the Department of State prior to this contract?

The provided data focuses solely on this specific contract (2015-2016) and does not offer historical spending patterns for the Department of State's overseas training initiatives. To analyze historical trends, one would need access to prior contract awards, budget allocations for training, and overall spending data for similar services over multiple fiscal years. Understanding historical spending would help determine if this $46.2 million expenditure represents an increase, decrease, or consistent level of investment in overseas training.

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: $68,693,957

Exercised Options: $68,693,957

Current Obligation: $46,198,495

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline