Department of Labor awards $63.2M contract to Minact, Inc. for technical and trade school services in Missouri

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $63,179,075 ($63.2M)

Contractor: Minact, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2018-06-01

End Date: 2022-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,552 days

Daily Burn Rate: $40.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THIS ACTION AWARDS THE EXCELSIOR SPRINGS PROCUREMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: EXCELSIOR SPRINGS, CLAY County, MISSOURI, 64024

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $63.2 million to MINACT, INC for work described as: THIS ACTION AWARDS THE EXCELSIOR SPRINGS PROCUREMENT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which can incentivize cost control. 3. Performance period spans over 4 years, indicating a significant, long-term service requirement. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized technical and trade instruction. 5. The contract is for services within Missouri, with a specific Service Area (SA) of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. 6. The base award amount is substantial, reflecting the scale of the services procured.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $63.2 million contract requires more detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. As a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract, the final cost is subject to performance and cost control, making direct comparisons difficult without understanding the incentive structure and achieved outcomes. However, the duration of over four years suggests a significant investment in these services. Further analysis would involve comparing the per-student cost or cost per training hour against similar programs offered by other institutions or 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 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this procurement. While multiple bidders participated, the specific number does not inherently guarantee the most competitive pricing without further insight into the bidding landscape and the nature of the services offered.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to offer their best pricing and terms, potentially leading to cost savings compared to non-competitive awards.

Public Impact

Individuals seeking technical and trade skills development in Missouri are the primary beneficiaries. The contract facilitates the delivery of educational and training services through technical and trade schools. The geographic impact is concentrated within Missouri, as indicated by the Service Area (ST) and State (SN) codes. The contract supports the workforce development goals of the Department of Labor by providing essential training opportunities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost efficiencies are realized and not undermined by excessive spending.
The long performance period could lead to scope creep or evolving needs that may not be fully captured in the initial contract terms.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant duration may limit opportunities for innovation or the adoption of more cost-effective training methods from other providers.

Positive Signals

Awarding through full and open competition suggests a deliberate effort to secure the best value from the market.
The CPIF contract type, if structured effectively, can align contractor incentives with government objectives for cost savings and performance.
The substantial funding allocated indicates a recognized need and commitment to providing these critical training services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical instruction. The NAICS code 611519 covers a range of non-degree-granting postsecondary institutions that provide technical or vocational training. Federal spending in this area often supports workforce development initiatives, aiming to equip individuals with skills needed for in-demand occupations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for similar vocational training programs across different agencies and geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The data provided does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As it was awarded under full and open competition, the primary contractor, Minact, Inc., is responsible for any subcontracting. Analysis of subcontracting plans and actual performance would be necessary to determine the extent of small business participation and its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside within the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. As a definitive contract, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight mechanisms. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of performance reviews, cost audits, and any modifications to the contract. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Labor Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs
Department of Education Career and Technical Education programs
G.I. Bill education benefits
State-level workforce development grants

Risk Flags

Potential for outdated curriculum due to long contract duration.
Risk of contractor complacency impacting service quality over time.
Need for robust oversight to manage CPIF structure effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $63.2 million to MINACT, INC. THIS ACTION AWARDS THE EXCELSIOR SPRINGS PROCUREMENT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MINACT, INC.

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 $63.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-06-01. End: 2022-08-31.

What is the track record of Minact, Inc. in performing similar government contracts, particularly those involving vocational training?

Assessing Minact, Inc.'s track record requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts. This would involve examining contract databases (like the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation) for previous awards, performance evaluations (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or corrective actions. Specifically, contracts with the Department of Labor or other agencies focused on workforce development would be most relevant. A positive track record would demonstrate their capability to deliver quality training services, manage costs effectively, and meet performance objectives, while a negative history could indicate potential risks for this current $63.2 million award.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure for this contract compare to industry standards for vocational training services?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure for this $63.2 million contract means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, with the fee adjusted based on performance against pre-determined targets (e.g., cost savings, quality metrics, timeliness). Comparing this to industry standards for vocational training requires understanding the specific incentive targets set by the Department of Labor. Typically, government contracts aim for a balance where incentives encourage efficiency without compromising the quality of training. If the incentives are well-defined and aligned with desired outcomes, CPIF can be an effective mechanism. However, poorly structured incentives could lead to unintended consequences or disputes. Benchmarking would involve looking at similar CPIF contracts in the education/training sector or analyzing the typical profit margins and performance bonuses common in private vocational training institutions.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Minact, Inc.'s performance under this contract, and how are they measured?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract are crucial for managing the CPIF structure and ensuring the Department of Labor receives value for its $63.2 million investment. While not explicitly detailed in the provided data, typical KPIs for vocational training contracts include student completion rates, job placement rates post-training, employer satisfaction with graduates' skills, adherence to curriculum standards, and cost-efficiency metrics. The measurement methods would likely involve regular reporting from Minact, Inc., potentially supplemented by third-party verification, student surveys, and employer feedback. The effectiveness of the CPIF hinges on how well these KPIs are defined, measured, and linked to the incentive fee adjustments.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar technical and trade school services procured by the Department of Labor or other federal agencies?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar technical and trade school services provides context for the $63.2 million award to Minact, Inc. This involves examining aggregate data on contracts awarded under NAICS code 611519 and related codes over several fiscal years. Key questions include: What has been the average contract value? What is the typical duration of such contracts? Which agencies are the largest procurers of these services? What is the prevailing contract type (e.g., FFP, CPIF, T&M)? Understanding these trends helps determine if the current award is within the expected range, if spending has increased or decreased, and if competition levels have remained consistent. This historical perspective is vital for assessing the reasonableness of the current contract's scope and value.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract (over 4 years) for vocational training services?

Long-duration contracts, such as this over four-year award for vocational training, present several potential risks. Firstly, the rapidly evolving nature of the job market and required skills means that training curricula may become outdated before the contract term ends, potentially diminishing the value delivered. Secondly, there's a risk of contractor complacency or reduced innovation over an extended period, especially if competition is limited after the initial award. Thirdly, unforeseen economic shifts or changes in government priorities could necessitate contract modifications or terminations, leading to inefficiencies. Finally, managing a long-term contract requires sustained oversight to ensure ongoing quality and cost control, which can be resource-intensive for the contracting agency. The CPIF structure may mitigate some cost risks, but performance risks related to relevance and quality remain.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 1630J5-18-R-00007

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Minact Inc

Address: 5220 KEELE ST, JACKSON, MS, 39206

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $79,260,147

Exercised Options: $76,497,695

Current Obligation: $63,179,075

Actual Outlays: $43,879,488

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline