Labor Department's $93.4M JCC Contract with Res-Care Inc. Awarded via Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $93,394,476 ($93.4M)

Contractor: Res-Care, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2004-01-01

End Date: 2009-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION OF PITTSBURGH JCC

Place of Performance

Location: PITTSBURGH, ALLEGHENY County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15206

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $93.4 million to RES-CARE, INC for work described as: OPERATION OF PITTSBURGH JCC Key points: 1. The contract value is substantial at $93.4 million. 2. Res-Care, Inc. secured this award through full and open competition. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, indicating shared risk and reward. 4. The sector appears to be vocational training or education, specifically 'Other Technical and Trade Schools'.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $93.4 million over approximately 5.5 years suggests an average annual value of around $17 million. Without specific per-unit cost data or benchmarks for similar 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' services, a precise value assessment is difficult. However, the duration and scope indicate a significant investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The award was made under full and open competition, which typically fosters competitive pricing and ensures the government receives the best value. The use of a definitive contract suggests a well-defined scope of work.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to more efficient use of taxpayer funds by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

This contract supports job training and employment services, potentially impacting numerous individuals seeking to improve their skills and career prospects. The long-term nature of the contract (over 5 years) suggests a sustained government need for these services. The specific focus on 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' indicates investment in specialized workforce development.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Lack of specific per-unit cost data makes direct value comparison challenging.
The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code is broad, making sector-specific benchmarks difficult to pinpoint.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
The contract duration indicates a stable, long-term program.
The contract supports essential employment and training services.

Sector Analysis

The sector involves vocational and technical education services, falling under 'Other Technical and Trade Schools'. Spending in this area supports workforce development and aims to equip individuals with job-ready skills. Benchmarks are difficult without more specific service details.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or prime contractors. Further investigation would be needed to assess small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's duration and value warrant ongoing oversight to ensure performance objectives are met and funds are used efficiently. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires careful monitoring of costs and performance against incentives.

Related Government Programs

Other Technical and Trade Schools
Department of Labor Contracting
Employment and Training Administration Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in CPIF contracts.
Lack of specific performance metrics and outcome data in the provided summary.
Broad NAICS code limits detailed sector-specific benchmarking.
No explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals or achievements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $93.4 million to RES-CARE, INC. OPERATION OF PITTSBURGH JCC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RES-CARE, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $93.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-01-01. End: 2009-06-30.

What specific training outcomes and success metrics were established for this contract, and how were they measured to ensure value for taxpayer investment?

The contract's value hinges on the effectiveness of the training provided. Key metrics would likely include job placement rates, wage increases post-training, and skill attainment. Robust performance monitoring and reporting mechanisms are crucial to ensure the Department of Labor is achieving its objectives for workforce development and that taxpayer funds are yielding tangible, positive outcomes for participants.

Given the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, what were the defined cost targets and incentive thresholds, and how did Res-Care, Inc. perform against them?

The CPIF structure aims to incentivize cost control and performance. Understanding the baseline cost estimates, the incentive fee structure (e.g., shared savings or performance bonuses), and Res-Care's actual performance against these targets is critical for assessing financial risk and reward. Without this detail, it's hard to judge if the fee structure effectively managed costs or led to unexpected expenditures.

How does the per-participant cost of services under this contract compare to similar government-funded or private sector training programs in Pennsylvania or nationally?

A comparative analysis of per-participant costs is essential for evaluating the contract's economic efficiency. Benchmarking against similar programs, considering factors like program intensity, duration, and target population, would reveal if this contract represents a fair market price. The absence of such data makes it difficult to definitively assess whether the $93.4 million investment was cost-effective.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Onex Rescare Acquisition, LLC (UEI: 966833399)

Address: 10140 LINN STATION RD, LOUISVILLE

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $280,556,362

Exercised Options: $280,551,592

Current Obligation: $93,394,476

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline