State Department awards $99M training services contract to PAE Government Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $99,029,221 ($99.0M)

Contractor: PAE Government Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2017-09-27

End Date: 2026-09-26

Contract Duration: 3,286 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRAINING SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $99.0 million to PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: TRAINING SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 3286 days (over 9 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541690 points to specialized consulting services. 5. This award represents a significant investment in training infrastructure for the Department of State. 6. The contractor, PAE Government Services, Inc., has a substantial contract value to manage.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total contract value of approximately $99 million over nearly 9 years suggests a significant investment in training services. Without specific benchmarks for comparable training contracts or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure generally promotes cost control by the contractor. Further analysis would require comparing per-unit training costs or instructor rates against industry standards and similar government contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 6 bids (no) suggests a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A competitive process like this is generally expected to drive down prices and ensure the government receives the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure training services at the most favorable price point. The multiple bids received suggest that the government had options and was not limited to a single provider, fostering price discovery.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of State personnel requiring specialized training. The services delivered are expected to enhance the skills and capabilities of government employees. The geographic impact is likely global, given the nature of diplomatic and international affairs training. Workforce implications include the potential for job creation within PAE Government Services, Inc. and its subcontractors, as well as the enhanced capacity of the trained government workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to potential cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period may reduce future competitive opportunities.
Scope creep could increase costs if not carefully monitored and controlled.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Multiple bidders indicate market interest and potential for competitive pricing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically consulting. The market for government training services is substantial, encompassing a wide range of specialized skills required by various federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale training contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or Homeland Security for similar types of professional development.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct small business set-aside implications. However, the prime contractor, PAE Government Services, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the contract requirements. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on the contractor's own policies and the specific nature of the training services required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring contractor performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and approving payments. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Training Programs
Federal Professional Services Contracts
Government Consulting Services
International Affairs Training
PAE Government Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of obsolescence or changing requirements.
Potential for contractor complacency over extended performance period.
Need for robust oversight to prevent scope creep and ensure quality.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $99.0 million to PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.. TRAINING SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $99.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-27. End: 2026-09-26.

What is the historical spending pattern for training services by the Department of State?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for training services by the Department of State is crucial for understanding the context of this $99 million award. While specific historical data for this exact category is not provided, federal agencies typically allocate significant budgets to personnel development and training. Trends often show an increase in spending on specialized skills training, particularly in areas related to cybersecurity, international relations, and emerging technologies. Examining past contract awards for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved would reveal whether this current award is an outlier, a continuation of a trend, or an expansion of training initiatives. For instance, if the Department has historically awarded multiple multi-million dollar contracts for training over several years, this $99 million award might represent a consolidation or a scaled-up version of previous efforts. Conversely, if historical spending has been significantly lower, this award warrants closer scrutiny regarding its justification and potential for cost-effectiveness.

How does the per-unit cost of training under this contract compare to industry benchmarks?

A key aspect of assessing value for money is comparing the per-unit cost of training services under this contract to established industry benchmarks. Without specific details on the types of training, the number of trainees, or the duration of each training session, a direct per-unit cost calculation is not feasible from the provided data. However, if such data were available, analysts would benchmark costs against similar training programs offered by private sector companies or other government agencies. For example, if the contract involves leadership training, the cost per participant per day would be compared to market rates. Similarly, specialized technical training costs would be benchmarked against industry-standard pricing for those specific skills. A significant deviation from benchmarks, either higher or lower, would prompt further investigation into the reasons behind the difference, such as unique service requirements, contractor efficiencies, or potential pricing issues.

What is PAE Government Services, Inc.'s track record with similar federal training contracts?

Evaluating PAE Government Services, Inc.'s track record with similar federal training contracts is essential for assessing performance risk and reliability. As a large government contractor, PAE likely has experience delivering a wide array of services, including training. Analysts would investigate past performance evaluations, contract completion history, and any documented issues or successes on previous training-related awards. Specifically, looking at contracts of similar size, scope, and duration would provide the most relevant insights. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget delivery of training services would be a positive indicator. Conversely, a record of performance deficiencies, contract disputes, or significant cost overruns on comparable contracts would raise concerns about their ability to meet the requirements of this new $99 million award. Information from sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be invaluable here.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (over 9 years)?

Contracts spanning over nine years, like this $99 million award, present several inherent risks. One primary concern is the potential for scope creep, where the requirements may evolve or expand beyond the original intent, leading to increased costs and potential disputes if not managed rigorously. Another risk is contractor complacency; over an extended period, a contractor might become less innovative or efficient if competition is perceived as distant. Furthermore, changes in technology, geopolitical landscapes, or agency priorities could render the training content or delivery methods outdated before the contract's end, necessitating costly modifications or replacements. There's also the risk of key personnel turnover within the contractor organization, potentially impacting the quality and consistency of training delivery. Finally, long-term contracts can tie up significant agency resources, potentially limiting flexibility to adapt to unforeseen needs or to capitalize on new, more cost-effective solutions that may emerge in the market.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type influence cost control and risk allocation?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally favored for services with well-defined requirements, as it places the primary cost risk on the contractor. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor agrees to perform the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This incentivizes the contractor to manage their expenses efficiently and to control project costs effectively to maximize profit. For the government, this means greater cost certainty and predictability, as the total price is fixed. However, if the contractor underestimates costs or encounters unforeseen difficulties, they bear the financial burden, which could potentially lead to quality compromises if not adequately monitored. The FFP structure is well-suited for training services where the scope is clearly delineated, minimizing the likelihood of significant cost overruns attributable to the government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Pae-Parsons Global Logistics Services, LLC

Address: 1320 N COURTHOUSE RD STE 700, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $105,315,182

Exercised Options: $105,315,182

Current Obligation: $99,029,221

Actual Outlays: $24,580,989

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 66

Total Subaward Amount: $8,167,078

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMMA17D0129

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline