Department of Labor's $20M training program awarded to International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,935,924 ($19.9M)

Contractor: International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2004-08-01

End Date: 2008-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,278 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.6K/day

Competition Type: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRAINING PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20006

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $19.9 million to INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES for work described as: TRAINING PROGRAM Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in workforce development and training services. 2. The follow-on nature of this award suggests a history of performance and established relationship. 3. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost containment. 4. The primary recipient is a union, indicating a focus on organized labor training initiatives. 5. The contract duration of over three years suggests a substantial and ongoing need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of approximately $20 million over its duration needs to be benchmarked against similar workforce development programs. Without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data, assessing value for money is challenging. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while allowing for flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed diligently. Further analysis would require understanding the specific training outcomes and their alignment with labor market needs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded as a follow-on to a competed action, indicating that the initial award was subject to a competitive bidding process. The specific details of the original competition, including the number of bidders and the evaluation criteria, are not provided here. However, the 'follow-on' designation suggests that the current award may have benefited from the established relationship and performance history from the previous contract.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive initial award generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price discovery and encouraging multiple vendors to offer their best terms. The follow-on nature, while potentially efficient, warrants scrutiny to ensure continued competitive pressure or justification for any reduced competition.

Public Impact

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades is the primary beneficiary, receiving funding to deliver training. The services delivered are focused on training programs, likely aimed at enhancing skills in specific trades. The contract is geographically focused on Washington D.C., as indicated by the 'ST' and 'SN' fields. The workforce implications are significant, potentially creating or sustaining jobs within the union and for trainees.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize spending if not closely monitored.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and impact of the training.
The follow-on nature, while potentially efficient, could reduce competitive pressure if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

Awarded as a follow-on to a competed action, suggesting prior successful performance.
The contract duration indicates a sustained commitment to workforce development.
The recipient is a major union, suggesting a structured and potentially effective delivery mechanism for training.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically related to training and workforce development. The market for such services is broad, encompassing government agencies, private companies, and non-profit organizations. Government spending in this area often focuses on upskilling the workforce, supporting specific industries, or addressing labor shortages. Benchmarking would involve comparing this contract's value and scope to other federal or state-level workforce training initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (SB) was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, a large union, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, though this is not explicitly detailed in the provided information. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the union actively seeks out small business partners for specialized services or supplies.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside within the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM). As a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and auditing are crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides the framework for contract administration and oversight. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of performance metrics and expenditures, though specific details on IG jurisdiction or detailed oversight mechanisms are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Department of Labor Workforce Training Programs
Apprenticeship and Training Services
Federal Workforce Development Initiatives
Union-Led Training Programs

Risk Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Lack of specific performance metrics hinders objective evaluation of program effectiveness.
Follow-on contract status may reduce competitive pressure compared to new procurements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $19.9 million to INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES. TRAINING PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES.

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 $19.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-08-01. End: 2008-01-31.

What specific skills or trades does this training program aim to develop, and how does this align with current labor market demands?

The provided data does not specify the exact skills or trades targeted by this training program. However, given the recipient is the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, it is highly probable that the training focuses on skills related to painting, finishing, and potentially other allied trades within the construction and maintenance sectors. To assess alignment with labor market demands, one would need to consult the program's curriculum, track placement rates of graduates into relevant employment, and compare the skills taught against industry needs and projected job growth in these fields. Without this granular information, the program's direct impact on addressing specific labor shortages or enhancing workforce competitiveness remains speculative.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure of this contract compare to other federal training programs of similar scope?

Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts are common in federal procurement when the scope of work is well-defined but the exact costs are uncertain, such as in research and development or complex service contracts. For training programs, CPFF allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF can offer more flexibility but carries a higher risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Benchmarking against similar federal training programs would involve analyzing the ratio of fixed fee to total costs, the overall cost per trainee, and the efficiency metrics achieved. Without specific data on comparable programs' pricing structures and outcomes, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract's CPFF arrangement is more or less advantageous.

What performance metrics were established for this training program, and how has the contractor performed against them?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics for this training program. Typically, such contracts would outline key performance indicators (KPIs) related to trainee completion rates, skill acquisition, job placement success, and potentially post-placement retention. The effectiveness of the program and the value delivered to taxpayers are directly tied to achieving these metrics. A thorough assessment would require access to performance reports submitted by the contractor and reviewed by the Department of Labor. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the contractor's track record or the program's success in meeting its objectives.

What was the competitive landscape during the initial procurement that led to this follow-on contract?

The data states this is a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' indicating that the original contract was awarded through a competitive process. However, the specifics of that competition—such as the number of bids received, the evaluation criteria used, and the relative strengths of the competing proposals—are not detailed here. A 'follow-on' contract often implies that the incumbent contractor has a performance advantage or that the scope has evolved in a way that favors the existing relationship. Understanding the initial competition is crucial for assessing whether the current award continues to benefit from robust market dynamics or if competition has been limited due to the nature of the follow-on action.

How has federal spending on similar workforce development and training programs evolved over the past decade?

Federal spending on workforce development and training programs has fluctuated over the past decade, influenced by economic conditions, administration priorities, and legislative changes. Broadly, there has been a continued emphasis on skills training, apprenticeships, and programs aimed at connecting workers with in-demand jobs. Funding levels can vary significantly year-to-year and across different agencies (e.g., Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Defense). Analyzing historical spending patterns for programs similar to this one would involve examining budget appropriations, contract awards data, and program evaluations to identify trends in investment, focus areas, and perceived effectiveness. This context helps in understanding the significance of the $20 million award within the larger federal commitment to workforce development.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: DOL041RP10001

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1750 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,841,940

Exercised Options: $22,841,940

Current Obligation: $19,935,924

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline