State Department Spends $47.6M on Overseas Training, Lacking Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,632,833 ($47.6M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2017-09-12

End Date: 2018-09-18

Contract Duration: 371 days

Daily Burn Rate: $128.4K/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 $47.6 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant spending on professional development training overseas. 2. Awardees are undisclosed domestic entities, limiting transparency. 3. Contract was not competed, raising concerns about price discovery. 4. The sector is professional and management development training.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $47.6M for a 371-day duration is substantial. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to assess if this price is reasonable compared to similar training services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. This lack of competition likely resulted in higher costs for taxpayers as there was no market pressure to achieve the best price.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have overpaid for the training services provided.

Public Impact

Taxpayers funded a large overseas training program without competitive pricing. Lack of transparency regarding the specific domestic awardees. Potential for inflated costs due to non-competitive award.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 30 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
High contract value

Positive Signals

Training provided overseas

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector. Spending benchmarks for this type of service can vary widely, but non-competed contracts often exceed market rates.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded to small businesses, as the 'sb' field is false. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were excluded or if the contract was simply too large.

Oversight & Accountability

The non-competed nature of this award warrants further oversight to ensure the necessity and cost-effectiveness of the training. Transparency regarding awardees is crucial for accountability.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
High contract value
Potential for overpayment
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $47.6 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 $47.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-12. End: 2018-09-18.

What was the justification for not competing this significant overseas training contract?

The justification for not competing this $47.6M overseas training contract is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards require a documented justification, such as a unique capability or urgent need. Without this information, it's impossible to assess the validity of the non-competitive decision and its impact on value for money.

What risks are associated with awarding large training contracts without competition?

Awarding large training contracts without competition poses several risks. Primarily, it can lead to inflated prices as there's no market pressure to offer competitive rates. It also reduces transparency and accountability, making it harder to verify the necessity and quality of the services. Furthermore, it limits opportunities for other qualified vendors, potentially excluding innovative solutions.

How can the effectiveness of this training be measured given the lack of competitive benchmarks?

Measuring the effectiveness of this training is challenging without competitive benchmarks. The Department of State would need robust internal metrics, such as pre- and post-training assessments, participant feedback, and observed changes in performance or skills. However, the lack of competition makes it difficult to definitively state whether the outcomes achieved represent the best possible value for the taxpayer's investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Business Schools and Computer and Management Training › Professional and Management Development Training

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL 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: $60,175,267

Exercised Options: $60,175,267

Current Obligation: $47,632,833

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline