Department of Labor's $53.3M contract for technical and trade schools awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,321,265 ($53.3M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2017-06-20

End Date: 2022-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,836 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BRUNSWICK JCC W/ OACTS

Place of Performance

Location: BRUNSWICK, GLYNN County, GEORGIA, 31525

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $53.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BRUNSWICK JCC W/ OACTS Key points: 1. The contract's value of $53.3 million over five years suggests a significant investment in workforce development or related services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, this contract indicates a market with multiple capable vendors. 3. The use of a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) pricing structure suggests a focus on performance and cost control, with potential for contractor bonuses tied to achieving specific objectives. 4. The contract duration of 1836 days (approximately 5 years) points to a long-term need for the services provided. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 for 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' highlights the specialized nature of the services procured. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Management & Training Corporation, despite being competed fully and openly.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $53.3 million contract requires detailed comparison to similar workforce development or technical training contracts. The CPIF structure implies that the final cost could vary based on performance, making a direct price comparison challenging without knowing the incentive targets and outcomes. However, the duration and scope suggest a substantial program. Without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data, assessing the value-for-money is difficult, but the competitive award process is a positive indicator.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The fact that there were two bids received suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While two bidders are better than one, it may not represent the full spectrum of potential providers in the market for technical and trade school services.

Taxpayer Impact: A fully and openly competed contract generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely individuals seeking technical and trade skills training, potentially leading to improved employment opportunities. The services delivered are expected to encompass vocational education, skills development, and possibly job placement assistance. The contract's geographic impact is specified as Georgia (ST: GA, SN: GEORGIA), suggesting the training programs are localized to that state. Workforce implications include the potential creation or sustainment of jobs within the training institutions and for the individuals who complete the programs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The CPIF structure requires careful monitoring to ensure incentives align with true value and do not lead to inflated costs.
Assessing the long-term effectiveness and impact of the training programs will be crucial for determining true value.
The limited number of bidders (two) warrants further investigation into market dynamics and potential barriers to entry for other qualified firms.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair procurement process.
The use of an incentive fee structure can drive performance and efficiency if well-structured.
The long contract duration indicates a sustained commitment to addressing a specific need within the Department of Labor's mission.

Sector Analysis

The education and training services sector is a significant area of federal spending, particularly for programs aimed at workforce development, vocational training, and re-skilling. This contract falls under the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' category, which supports specialized educational institutions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other federal contracts for similar training services, potentially across agencies like the Department of Education or Veterans Affairs, to gauge the market rate for such programs.

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 mandated by a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, Management & Training Corporation, is likely a larger entity, and its engagement with the small business ecosystem would depend on its own subcontracting strategies, which are not detailed in this data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM), which awarded the contract. Accountability measures would be embedded within the CPIF structure, linking contractor performance to financial incentives. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms, and the Inspector General's office for the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Job Corps Program
Department of Labor Training Grants
Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPIF structure if not closely managed.
Risk of underperformance if incentive targets are not met or are poorly defined.
Dependence on a single contractor (MTC) for a significant program duration.
Ensuring the training provided remains relevant to current and future labor market demands.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $53.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. IGF::OT::IGF BRUNSWICK JCC W/ OACTS

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 $53.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-06-20. End: 2022-06-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for Management & Training Corporation with the Department of Labor?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns for Management & Training Corporation (MTC) with the Department of Labor (DOL) is crucial for understanding the contractor's track record and the government's reliance on their services. Without specific historical data provided, a general assessment can be made. MTC is a known provider of correctional education, vocational training, and reentry services. If MTC has a history of receiving significant contracts from DOL, it suggests a level of trust and proven capability. However, a detailed review would involve examining past contract values, performance reviews, and any documented issues or successes. A pattern of consistent, well-performed contracts would bolster confidence, while a history of disputes, cost overruns, or performance failures would raise concerns about future value and risk.

How does the per-unit cost of training under this contract compare to similar federal programs?

Determining the per-unit cost of training under this $53.3 million contract requires specific data on the number of individuals trained or the specific training units delivered. The NAICS code 611519 ('Other Technical and Trade Schools') indicates a broad range of potential training services. To benchmark, one would need to identify comparable federal programs (e.g., Job Corps, WIOA-funded training) that offer similar vocational or technical skills. The comparison would involve calculating the cost per participant or per training module for this contract and contrasting it with established benchmarks from other government agencies or industry standards. Factors like the duration and intensity of training, the specific skills taught, and the geographic location can significantly influence per-unit costs. A higher per-unit cost might be justified by specialized training, longer program duration, or superior placement rates, but requires thorough justification.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) tied to the incentive fee structure of this contract?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure of this contract implies that Management & Training Corporation's fee is adjusted based on achieving specific performance targets. While the exact KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical indicators for technical and trade school contracts awarded by the Department of Labor often include: 1. **Completion Rates:** The percentage of participants who successfully complete the training program. 2. **Job Placement Rates:** The percentage of graduates who secure employment in a field related to their training within a specified timeframe (e.g., 90 or 180 days post-completion). 3. **Starting Wages:** The average starting salary of placed graduates. 4. **Program Retention:** Measures to ensure participants remain engaged and motivated throughout the training. 5. **Employer Satisfaction:** Feedback from employers who hire graduates. The incentive fee would likely be structured to reward performance exceeding baseline targets in these or similar areas, thereby aligning the contractor's financial interests with the government's goals of effective workforce development.

What is the risk assessment associated with Management & Training Corporation as a contractor for this type of service?

The risk assessment for Management & Training Corporation (MTC) as a contractor for technical and trade school services involves evaluating their past performance, financial stability, and operational capacity. MTC has a long history of providing educational and training services, often within correctional facilities and for disadvantaged populations. This experience suggests a familiarity with the target demographic and the complexities of delivering such programs. However, risks can include potential challenges in meeting stringent performance metrics, managing large-scale operations across multiple locations, and adapting to evolving labor market demands. A thorough risk assessment would also consider any past performance issues, contract disputes, or findings from audits or Inspector General reports related to MTC's government contracts. The CPIF structure itself can mitigate some financial risk for the government by incentivizing performance, but operational and programmatic risks remain.

How does the $53.3 million contract value compare to the overall federal spending on technical and trade schools?

The $53.3 million contract value represents a significant, but not necessarily dominant, portion of federal spending on technical and trade schools. The federal government invests heavily in workforce development through various agencies, including the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Education, and Department of Veterans Affairs. DOL alone manages numerous programs aimed at skills training and employment. This specific contract, awarded under NAICS code 611519, focuses on 'Other Technical and Trade Schools,' suggesting specialized training beyond standard vocational programs. To contextualize the $53.3 million, one would need to examine aggregate federal outlays for similar services, which can run into billions of dollars annually across all agencies. This contract's value indicates a substantial commitment to a specific initiative or region within DOL's purview, likely addressing a critical need for skilled labor in Georgia.

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-15-R-00030

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: $55,534,873

Exercised Options: $55,534,873

Current Obligation: $53,321,265

Actual Outlays: $32,712,085

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $93,622

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline