Labor Department's $148M Technical Training Contract Awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $148,397,421 ($148.4M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2017-06-29

End Date: 2024-06-05

Contract Duration: 2,533 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ::IGF::OT::IGF CLEARFIELD JCC

Place of Performance

Location: CLEARFIELD, DAVIS County, UTAH, 84016

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $148.4 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: ::IGF::OT::IGF CLEARFIELD JCC Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries inherent risks. 3. The duration of the contract is substantial at 2533 days, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized technical and trade school services. 5. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Management & Training Corporation, after the competitive process. 6. The contract's performance period spans across multiple fiscal years, requiring sustained budget allocation. 7. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, indicating larger firms were likely the primary bidders.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. The total award amount of $148.4 million over approximately seven years suggests a significant investment in technical training. Comparisons to similar large-scale federal training contracts would be necessary to assess if the pricing is competitive. The incentive fee structure implies that performance and cost savings could lead to adjustments in the final price, making a definitive value assessment difficult at this stage.

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 a bid. The presence of 4 bidders (as indicated by 'no': 4) suggests a moderate level of competition for this contract. While multiple bidders participated, the final award went to a single contractor, Management & Training Corporation. The level of competition is a positive sign for price discovery, but the ultimate impact on cost savings depends on the specific bidding strategies and the government's evaluation criteria.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently by driving down prices and encouraging better service offerings from contractors.

Public Impact

Individuals seeking technical and vocational training, particularly in areas aligned with the services provided by Management & Training Corporation. The Department of Labor, which aims to enhance workforce development and employment opportunities. The contract likely impacts workforce development initiatives within Utah, the specified state ('ST': 'UT'). Potential beneficiaries include individuals seeking to acquire new skills or improve existing ones for better employment prospects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
The long duration of the contract (2533 days) may present challenges in adapting to evolving training needs or technological advancements.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant period could limit flexibility and introduce vendor lock-in risks.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The contract aims to provide valuable technical and trade school services, contributing to workforce development.
The incentive fee structure, if well-defined, can align contractor performance with government objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical training. The market for federal workforce development and training programs is substantial, with various agencies contracting for services to upskill or reskill the civilian workforce and specific populations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal contracts for technical training, career services, and educational program delivery across different agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('sb': false). This suggests that the scope and requirements of the contract were likely geared towards larger organizations with the capacity to handle such a large-scale, long-term training program. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, but it is common for prime contractors on large federal contracts to engage small businesses for specialized services, which could provide opportunities within the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's contracting officers and program managers. The 'Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management' (SA) likely plays a key role in the administrative oversight. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected within the contract's execution.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs
Job Corps
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses related to training services
Department of Labor grants for workforce development
Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type requires careful monitoring of cost and performance metrics.
Long contract duration may pose risks related to adaptability and obsolescence.
Need to verify contractor's past performance and compliance history.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $148.4 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. ::IGF::OT::IGF CLEARFIELD 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 $148.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-06-29. End: 2024-06-05.

What is the historical spending pattern of the Department of Labor on technical and trade school services, and how does this contract compare?

Analyzing the Department of Labor's historical spending on technical and trade school services requires accessing detailed procurement data over several fiscal years. This contract, valued at approximately $148.4 million, represents a significant single award. To compare, one would need to aggregate spending on similar NAICS codes (e.g., 611519) and contract types (e.g., cost-reimbursement, fixed-price with incentives) awarded by the DOL. Without this historical data, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract is an outlier or part of a consistent spending trend. However, the substantial award amount suggests a major initiative or a long-term commitment to a specific training program.

How does the performance of Management & Training Corporation on previous federal contracts inform the risk assessment for this award?

Assessing the risk associated with Management & Training Corporation requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those with the Department of Labor or similar agencies. Key indicators include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of services, and any past performance issues or disputes. Information from sources like the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) can provide insights into contractor performance history. A track record of successful contract completion and positive performance reviews would mitigate risks, while a history of issues could raise concerns about the contractor's ability to meet the requirements of this new $148 million contract.

What specific technical skills or trades are being emphasized under this contract, and how do they align with current labor market demands?

The contract's NAICS code (611519 - Other Technical and Trade Schools) indicates a broad scope of potential training areas. To understand the specific skills being emphasized, one would need to examine the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). This document details the services required, including the types of training programs, target populations, and desired learning outcomes. Alignment with labor market demands would be assessed by comparing the skills taught under the contract against current and projected needs identified by labor market analysts, industry reports, and the Department of Labor's own workforce development strategies.

What are the potential implications of the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type on cost control and contractor motivation?

A Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract allows the contractor to be reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-determined targets, often related to cost, schedule, or performance. For this $148 million contract, the CPIF structure aims to incentivize Management & Training Corporation to control costs while achieving specific performance objectives. If the targets are well-defined and achievable, it can lead to cost savings for the government and a higher fee for the contractor. However, if targets are poorly set or performance metrics are difficult to measure, it could lead to disputes or fail to achieve the intended cost control benefits. Close government oversight is crucial to ensure the incentive structure effectively drives desired outcomes.

How does the geographic focus on Utah ('ST': 'UT') influence the scope and impact of this federal training contract?

The designation of Utah ('UT') as the state of performance suggests that the primary beneficiaries and operational focus of this $148 million training contract are within Utah. This could involve training programs tailored to the specific economic needs and industries prevalent in Utah, such as advanced manufacturing, technology, or natural resources. The impact would be felt through job creation or enhancement for Utah residents, potentially addressing specific workforce shortages within the state. It also implies that the contractor, Management & Training Corporation, has a significant operational presence or partnership network within Utah to deliver these services effectively.

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-00065

Offers Received: 4

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: $201,909,857

Exercised Options: $199,917,953

Current Obligation: $148,397,421

Actual Outlays: $94,192,238

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Total Subaward Amount: $523,970

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline