State Department spent $23.3M on management training, awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,279,755 ($23.3M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2016-03-01

End Date: 2017-02-28

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.0K/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 $23.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. The contract's value of $23.3 million represents a significant investment in professional development. 2. Awarded as a sole-source contract, it bypasses competitive bidding processes. 3. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 4. The short duration of 364 days suggests a focused, short-term training need. 5. The lack of disclosed domestic awardees raises transparency concerns. 6. The absence of small business set-asides indicates limited opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of disclosed awardees and specific service details. However, $23.3 million for management training over one year is substantial. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents fair market value or if alternative, more cost-effective solutions were available. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing model, while offering flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts 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 the Department of State did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the service. However, it limits the opportunity for price discovery through competition and may result in higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost savings that competitive bidding can generate. This can lead to less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

Department of State personnel likely benefited from enhanced management and professional development skills. The services delivered were focused on professional and management development training. The geographic impact is likely domestic, centered around where State Department employees are based or trained. Workforce implications include potentially improved leadership and operational efficiency within the department.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of innovation.
Sole-source awards can limit opportunities for small businesses to participate.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts carry inherent risks of cost escalation if not closely monitored.
Undisclosed awardees reduce transparency and accountability.
The specific training outcomes and their impact on departmental performance are not detailed.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a specific need for professional and management development within the State Department.
The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the government.
The contract duration is clearly defined, allowing for focused execution.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant market supporting government and corporate needs. This contract falls within the broader professional services category. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific nature and scale of the training provided. However, government spending on training and development is substantial, reflecting its importance in maintaining a skilled workforce.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements. The sole-source nature of the award further limits opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract, potentially concentrating the award value among larger, undisclosed entities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve contract officers and program managers within the Department of State. Accountability would be measured against the contract's performance work statement and deliverables. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and undisclosed awardees. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Training Programs
Federal Management Training Contracts
Professional Development Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award bypasses competition, potentially increasing costs.
Lack of disclosed awardee reduces transparency.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure carries risk of cost escalation.
No small business set-aside limits opportunities for smaller firms.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $23.3 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 $23.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-03-01. End: 2017-02-28.

What specific management development topics were covered under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Professional and Management Development Training' (NAICS 611430). However, the specific topics covered are not detailed in the available information. Typically, such training can encompass areas like leadership skills, strategic planning, project management, communication, team building, and conflict resolution. The Department of State's specific needs would dictate the curriculum focus. Further details would likely be found in the contract's statement of work or performance work statement, which are not publicly accessible in this dataset.

How does the $23.3 million cost compare to similar management training contracts awarded by the government?

Direct comparison of the $23.3 million cost is difficult without knowing the exact scope, duration, and number of personnel trained. However, government spending on professional development can vary widely. For a single-year contract, $23.3 million is a substantial amount, suggesting either a large number of participants or highly specialized, intensive training. Without competitive bids, it's hard to determine if this represents a fair market price. Benchmarking against other sole-source awards for similar services would be necessary for a more precise assessment, but such data is often not readily available or comparable due to unique contract specifics.

What are the risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for training services?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee. While the fixed fee provides some cost certainty for the government regarding profit, the reimbursement of costs can incentivize the contractor to incur higher expenses than necessary, as their profit margin remains constant regardless of the total cost. Effective oversight, detailed cost accounting, and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate the risk of cost overruns and ensure value for taxpayer money in CPFF contracts.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The data indicates this contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source award. Agencies typically sole-source contracts when only one responsible source is available or capable of providing the required service. Reasons can include unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent needs where competition is impractical, or specific government requirements that only one contractor can meet. Without further documentation from the Department of State justifying the sole-source determination, the exact reason remains undisclosed, but it suggests a belief that competitive bidding was not feasible or advantageous in this instance.

What is the track record of the undisclosed contractor for providing management training?

The provided data does not include the identity of the contractor, only that they are 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'. Therefore, it is impossible to assess the contractor's track record, past performance, or experience in providing management training services based solely on this information. A thorough analysis would require identifying the contractor through other means (e.g., federal procurement databases, agency reports) and then reviewing their performance history on previous contracts.

What were the expected outcomes or performance metrics for this training contract?

The provided data does not specify the expected outcomes or performance metrics for this training contract. Typically, such details would be outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW) associated with the contract. These documents define the scope of work, deliverables, quality standards, and how performance will be measured and evaluated. Without access to these documents, it's impossible to determine how the success or effectiveness of the $23.3 million investment in training was intended to be assessed.

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: $26,884,127

Exercised Options: $26,884,127

Current Obligation: $23,279,755

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline