State Department Awards $26.4M for Overseas Training, Sole-Source Contract Raises Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,379,465 ($26.4M)

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: $62.2K/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 $26.4 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $26.4 million for professional development training. 2. Awarded to domestic, undisclosed entities, limiting transparency. 3. Sole-source procurement raises questions about competition and potential overpricing. 4. The training sector is competitive, making a sole-source award unusual.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $26.4 million for professional development training appears high, especially given the lack of disclosed awardees. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to benchmark pricing against similar services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This method bypasses competitive discovery, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers and limiting opportunities for other qualified vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition in this sole-source award may result in taxpayer funds being used inefficiently, as a fair market price may not have been established.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for training services due to the absence of competitive bidding. Lack of transparency regarding awardees hinders public scrutiny of contract performance. Missed opportunity for small businesses to compete for a substantial government contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Undisclosed awardees
High contract value for training

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to domestic entities

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is generally competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized services. A contract of this magnitude typically undergoes a competitive bidding process to ensure value for money.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not competed, and there is no indication that small businesses were involved in the award. This represents a missed opportunity for small business participation in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award warrants further oversight to ensure the price paid was fair and reasonable and that the services delivered met the government's needs effectively.

Related Government Programs

Professional and Management Development Training
Department of State Contracting
Department of State Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
Potential for overpricing
Limited transparency
Missed small business opportunities

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $26.4 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 $26.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

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

What specific justification was provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, given the availability of multiple providers in the training sector?

The justification for a sole-source award is critical, especially in a sector with numerous qualified vendors. Typically, sole-source contracts are reserved for situations where only one vendor can meet the government's unique requirements, or in cases of urgent need. Without this justification, the award appears to circumvent standard procurement practices designed to ensure competition and cost-effectiveness.

How was the price determined to be fair and reasonable without a competitive bidding process?

Determining price reasonableness without competition is challenging. Agencies usually rely on historical pricing, commercial price lists, or independent government cost estimates. However, the absence of competing offers makes it difficult to validate if the fixed fee was truly optimal or if taxpayers bore an unnecessary cost premium.

What metrics are in place to measure the effectiveness and value delivered by this $26.4 million training contract?

Given the significant investment, robust performance metrics are essential to assess the training's effectiveness. This includes tracking participant feedback, skill acquisition, and the application of learned skills in overseas operations. Without clear performance indicators and reporting, it's difficult to ascertain the true value derived from this sole-source expenditure.

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: $49,627,979

Exercised Options: $30,383,140

Current Obligation: $26,379,465

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline