Department of Labor's $33.5M sole-source contract for technical and trade schools awarded to Adams and Associates Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,458,528 ($33.5M)

Contractor: Adams and Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2015-08-27

End Date: 2018-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,222 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF GRAFTON JCC SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: NORTH GRAFTON, WORCESTER County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01536

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $33.5 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF GRAFTON JCC SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting competitive opportunities. 2. Significant contract value suggests a substantial need for the services provided. 3. The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code indicates a focus on vocational training. 4. Contract duration of over 3 years implies a long-term requirement. 5. The cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) structure aims to align contractor performance with government objectives. 6. Awarded to a single contractor, raising questions about market competition and potential price efficiencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific service details or comparable sole-source awards. The CPIF pricing structure suggests an attempt to control costs, but the lack of competition inherently limits the government's ability to secure the best possible price. The contract's value of over $33 million over its duration indicates a significant investment, and without competitive bidding, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents optimal value for taxpayer funds.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach bypasses the standard procurement process where multiple vendors would submit bids. While sole-source awards are permissible under specific circumstances (e.g., only one responsible source exists), they generally lead to less price discovery and potentially higher costs for the government compared to fully competed contracts.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the cost savings that could arise from a bidding process. This could result in a higher overall expenditure for the services rendered.

Public Impact

Individuals seeking technical and trade school education and training may benefit from services funded by this contract. The contract supports workforce development initiatives by providing access to vocational skills. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where the training services are delivered. Potential workforce implications include the training and upskilling of individuals for specific industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and potentially increases costs.
Lack of transparency in pricing due to non-competitive nature.
Difficulty in assessing performance benchmarks without competitive context.

Positive Signals

CPIF structure incentivizes contractor performance.
Focus on technical and trade schools addresses specific workforce needs.
Long-term contract suggests a sustained government requirement.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical education. This sector is crucial for workforce development, providing individuals with the skills needed for various industries. Comparable spending in this area can vary widely depending on the specific training programs and the scale of government initiatives. The market for technical and trade schools includes a mix of public, private, and non-profit institutions.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. As a sole-source award, it was not subject to the typical competitive processes that might include subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Adams and Associates Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract, focusing on performance metrics and cost controls. Transparency may be limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract details and performance reports should be accessible through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

Department of Labor Training Programs
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funded initiatives
Federal Vocational Education Grants
Department of Education Technical Training Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for cost overruns without competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $33.5 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC. IGF::OT::IGF GRAFTON JCC SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES 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 $33.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-08-27. End: 2018-12-31.

What specific technical and trade school services are being provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 611519, 'Other Technical and Trade Schools.' This suggests services related to vocational training, skill development, and potentially certification in various trades. However, the specific curriculum, target industries, or types of trades being taught are not detailed in the summary data. Further investigation into the contract's statement of work would be necessary to understand the precise nature of the educational services delivered and their alignment with Department of Labor objectives for workforce development.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

Sole-source awards are typically justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the government's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or specific expertise held by Adams and Associates Inc. that cannot be replicated by other vendors. The Department of Labor would have had to document the justification for this sole-source determination, likely citing reasons such as specialized training methodologies, existing infrastructure, or a critical need that could not be met through a competitive process within the required timeframe. Without access to the justification documentation, the exact reasons remain speculative.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure work in this contract?

A Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract is a type of cost-reimbursement contract where the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs and also receives a fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-determined targets. In this case, Adams and Associates Inc. would be reimbursed for their costs associated with providing the training services. The 'incentive fee' component means their profit is tied to achieving specific performance objectives, such as training completion rates, job placement success, or cost savings. This structure aims to motivate the contractor to perform efficiently and effectively while managing costs.

What is the historical spending pattern for this type of service by the Department of Labor?

The provided data only details this specific contract award. To understand historical spending patterns for technical and trade school services by the Department of Labor, one would need to analyze broader federal procurement data. This would involve searching for contracts under similar NAICS codes (e.g., 611519) or those related to workforce development and vocational training across multiple fiscal years. Analyzing this broader dataset would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the prevalence of sole-source versus competed awards in this domain.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude ($33.5 million) is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without competing bids, the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing. Other risks include a potential reduction in innovation, as the contractor may have less incentive to develop novel approaches compared to a competitive environment. Furthermore, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult to switch providers or negotiate better terms in the future. Ensuring robust oversight and performance management becomes even more critical in sole-source situations to mitigate these risks.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10395 DOUBLE R BLVD, RENO, NV, 89521

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: $33,458,528

Exercised Options: $33,458,528

Current Obligation: $33,458,528

Actual Outlays: $3,491,236

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline