Department of Labor's $39.8M contract for technical and trade schools awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,770,496 ($39.8M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2017-03-31

End Date: 2023-05-31

Contract Duration: 2,252 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF HARFORD JCC

Place of Performance

Location: HARTFORD, HARTFORD County, CONNECTICUT, 06106

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $39.8 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF HARFORD JCC Key points: 1. The contract's value of $39.8 million over its period of performance suggests a significant investment in vocational training. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract were 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION', indicating a potentially robust bidding process. 3. The contract type is 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE', which can incentivize contractor performance but also carries cost overrun risks. 4. The duration of the contract, spanning from March 2017 to May 2023, points to a long-term need for these services. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 for 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' places this contract within the education and training sector. 6. The award was made to Management & Training Corporation, a known entity in the correctional and workforce training space.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $39.8 million contract requires more granular data on the specific services provided and the number of individuals trained. However, the cost-plus incentive fee structure suggests an effort to control costs while ensuring performance. Without comparable contracts for similar training programs, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The contract's duration and total value indicate a substantial commitment, implying that the services are deemed necessary and potentially cost-effective if outcomes are met.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION', suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of two bids (no: 2) indicates some level of competition, but the exact number of interested parties and the rigor of the evaluation process are not detailed. A higher number of bidders typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally provides a better opportunity for taxpayers to receive competitive pricing compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals seeking technical and trade skills development through programs managed under this contract. The services delivered likely include vocational training, career counseling, and job placement assistance. The geographic impact is centered in Connecticut (sn: CONNECTICUT), where the services are presumably delivered. Workforce implications include the potential for upskilling and reskilling the local workforce, contributing to economic development in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus incentive fee contracts can lead to higher final costs if not managed carefully, as the government bears the cost of performance plus an incentive.
The limited number of bids (2) might indicate potential barriers to entry for other qualified contractors or a lack of broad market interest.
The specific outcomes and effectiveness of the training programs are not detailed, making it difficult to assess the true impact and return on investment.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
The long contract duration (2017-2023) implies a sustained need and potentially successful delivery of services over time.
The focus on technical and trade schools aligns with efforts to address workforce development needs and skill gaps.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical skills. The market for such services is driven by government initiatives for workforce development, re-entry programs, and job training. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for similar educational services, particularly those administered by the Department of Labor or other agencies focused on workforce readiness. The size of this contract suggests a significant program within its specific niche.

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 subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, Management & Training Corporation, is likely a large business, and its engagement does not inherently create opportunities for small business participation unless specified in subcontracting plans not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (SA). The Inspector General's office within the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Job Corps Program
Federal Correctional Industries (FCI) Training Programs
Department of Education Vocational Training Grants

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus contract type requires careful monitoring to prevent cost overruns.
Limited number of bidders may indicate reduced competition and potentially higher prices.
Performance metrics and outcomes are not detailed, posing a risk to assessing true value.
Contract duration is long, increasing exposure to potential changes in needs or economic conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $39.8 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. IGF::CT::IGF HARFORD JCC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Labor (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-03-31. End: 2023-05-31.

What specific technical and trade skills were covered under this contract, and what were the target outcomes for participants?

The provided data identifies the contract's NAICS code as 611519 (Other Technical and Trade Schools), indicating a broad scope of vocational training. However, the specific skills taught and the intended learning outcomes for participants are not detailed in the summary data. Typically, such contracts aim to equip individuals with marketable skills in fields like manufacturing, healthcare support, information technology, or skilled trades. The success metrics would likely include completion rates, credential attainment, and post-program employment rates. Without access to the contract's statement of work or performance reports, a precise answer regarding the curriculum and expected outcomes remains elusive.

How does the cost-plus incentive fee (CPIF) structure typically influence contractor behavior and final costs in training contracts?

A Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract is designed to share risks and rewards between the government and the contractor. The government agrees to pay the contractor's actual costs plus a negotiated fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-determined targets (e.g., cost, schedule, or technical performance). For training contracts, this could mean the fee increases if the contractor achieves high completion rates or job placement percentages within budget. Conversely, the fee decreases if targets are missed. This structure incentivizes the contractor to perform efficiently and effectively to maximize their fee. However, it also means the final cost is not fixed and can fluctuate, requiring diligent government oversight to ensure the incentive targets are appropriate and the final fee represents good value.

What is the typical track record of Management & Training Corporation in delivering government-funded training programs?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is a private operator of correctional facilities and workforce training programs. They have a history of managing large-scale government contracts, including Job Corps centers and correctional programs for various federal and state agencies. Their track record generally involves operating facilities and delivering training services, often with a focus on vocational skills and rehabilitation. Performance reviews and outcomes can vary depending on the specific contract and location. While MTC is a significant player in this sector, the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs are subject to ongoing evaluation by the contracting agencies and oversight bodies.

How does the $39.8 million total contract value compare to other federal spending on vocational training programs?

The $39.8 million total contract value represents a substantial investment in vocational training over its approximately 6-year period. To benchmark this, one would compare it to the annual budgets of large federal workforce development initiatives like the Job Corps program, which historically receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Other federal agencies also fund vocational training through various grants and contracts. This specific contract's value suggests it supports a significant regional or specialized training effort. Without knowing the exact scope (e.g., number of participants, duration of training), direct comparison is difficult, but it is a considerable sum indicative of a major program.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract for technical and trade schools?

The primary risks with a CPIF contract for technical and trade schools revolve around cost control and performance measurement. While the incentive fee aims to align contractor goals with government objectives, there's a risk that the 'incentive' targets might be set too low, leading to excessive profits for the contractor without commensurate gains in training quality or outcomes. Conversely, overly ambitious targets could demotivate the contractor. Another risk is the potential for scope creep or the contractor focusing on easily achievable metrics rather than the most impactful training. The government must ensure robust monitoring of costs and rigorous evaluation of training effectiveness to mitigate these risks and ensure taxpayer value.

Given the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' and only two bidders, what does this imply about market saturation or barriers to entry in this specific training sector?

A 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' with only two bidders can suggest several possibilities regarding the market for these specific technical and trade school services. It might indicate that the market is relatively niche, with a limited number of highly qualified providers capable of meeting the contract's requirements. Alternatively, there could be significant barriers to entry, such as stringent pre-qualification criteria, high startup costs, or complex regulatory hurdles, that deter potential bidders. It could also reflect a lack of aggressive outreach by the procuring agency to attract a wider pool of competitors. This limited competition might reduce the government's leverage in negotiating favorable pricing and terms compared to a more crowded marketplace.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Other Technical and Trade Schools

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: DOL-ETA-16-R-00082

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 N MARKET PL DR STE 100, CENTERVILLE, UT, 84014

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $67,021,698

Exercised Options: $63,672,221

Current Obligation: $39,770,496

Actual Outlays: $30,258,244

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $202,020

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline