Department of Labor awards $60.9M contract for Job Corps Center operations, highlighting a 4-year service period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $60,876,841 ($60.9M)

Contractor: Adams and Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2006-10-24

End Date: 2010-05-31

Contract Duration: 1,315 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION OF THE ATTERBURY JOB CORPS CENTER WITH IT SATELLITE CAMPUS, INDYPENDENCE CAREER DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: EDINBURGH, JOHNSON County, INDIANA, 46124

State: Indiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $60.9 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: OPERATION OF THE ATTERBURY JOB CORPS CENTER WITH IT SATELLITE CAMPUS, INDYPENDENCE CAREER DEVELOPMENT CENTER Key points: 1. The contract value of $60.9 million over approximately 3.6 years suggests a significant investment in workforce development. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are favorable, with 4 bidders vying for the award, indicating a healthy market. 3. The contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) suggests a focus on performance and cost control, with potential for shared savings. 4. The duration of the contract (1315 days) provides a stable operational period for the contractor. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized technical and trade school services. 6. The contract's geographic focus on Indiana (ST: IN, SN: INDIANA) indicates a localized impact on workforce training.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $60.9 million over roughly 3.6 years averages to approximately $16.9 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar Job Corps center operations requires detailed cost breakdowns, but the scale suggests a substantial program. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type implies that the government aims to incentivize cost efficiency and performance, which can lead to better value if managed effectively. Without specific performance metrics and final costs, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the competitive nature of the award provides a positive signal.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with four distinct bidders participating. This level of competition is generally positive as it allows for a wider range of potential contractors to propose solutions and can drive down prices. The presence of multiple bidders suggests that the market for operating Job Corps centers is robust and that the government had a good selection of qualified entities to choose from, likely leading to a more competitive pricing structure.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that encourages lower bids and better service offerings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals seeking vocational training and career development services through the Atterbury Job Corps Center and the Independence Career Development Center. The contract delivers essential services related to operating and managing Job Corps centers, including training, education, and job placement assistance. The geographic impact is concentrated in Indiana, providing local residents with opportunities for skill enhancement and employment. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for instructors, administrators, and support staff at the contracted centers, as well as the development of a skilled local workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts if not rigorously monitored.
Ensuring consistent quality of training and job placement across different centers and over the contract's duration.
Dependence on government funding levels for the Job Corps program, which can fluctuate.
The need for effective performance metrics to accurately assess contractor success and justify incentive payments.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
The use of a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract structure can incentivize efficiency and performance.
The contractor, Adams and Associates Inc., has a track record of managing similar federal contracts.
The contract duration of over three years provides stability for program operations and service delivery.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Education and Training Services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical education. The NAICS code 611519, 'Other Technical and Trade Schools,' encompasses institutions that provide training for specific trades and occupations. The Job Corps program is a significant government initiative aimed at addressing poverty and improving employment opportunities for at-risk youth. Spending in this sector is driven by federal and state investments in workforce development and education.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (SB: false, SS: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the most capable and cost-effective provider through full and open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which would typically be detailed in the contract's terms and conditions. The absence of set-aside provisions means that large businesses were eligible and likely competed for this award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and monitoring of key performance indicators outlined in the contract. The CPIF structure itself implies oversight to ensure that incentive targets are met and that costs remain within acceptable bounds. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and potentially through public reporting on Job Corps program outcomes.

Related Government Programs

Job Corps Program
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Federal Job Training Programs
Vocational Education Contracts
Department of Labor Training Initiatives

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (CPIF)
Performance Monitoring Complexity
Potential for Cost Overruns
Dependence on Program Funding Stability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $60.9 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC. OPERATION OF THE ATTERBURY JOB CORPS CENTER WITH IT SATELLITE CAMPUS, INDYPENDENCE CAREER DEVELOPMENT CENTER

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 (Employment and Training Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $60.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-24. End: 2010-05-31.

What is the historical spending trend for the operation of the Atterbury Job Corps Center and related facilities?

Analyzing historical spending for the Atterbury Job Corps Center requires access to specific contract data over multiple award cycles. The current award of $60.9 million over approximately 3.6 years (2006-2010) suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $16.9 million. To understand trends, one would need to compare this to previous contracts for the same facility, looking for increases or decreases in total value, contract types, and the number of bidders. Significant deviations could indicate changes in program scope, inflation, or shifts in competitive landscape. Without prior contract details, it's difficult to establish a definitive trend, but this award represents a substantial, multi-year commitment.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) compare to other Job Corps center contracts?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure is common in federal contracting where performance outcomes are critical and can be objectively measured. For Job Corps centers, a CPIF contract allows the contractor to incur costs, but provides for a target cost, a target fee, and a fee incentive determined by the relationship of actual costs to target costs. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs while meeting performance standards related to training completion, job placement rates, and student satisfaction. Comparing this to other Job Corps contracts would involve examining whether they use fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, or other incentive-based structures. CPIF is often favored when there's uncertainty in costs but a clear path to measuring success, potentially leading to better value than simpler cost-plus models if performance targets are well-defined and achieved.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's success under this contract?

While the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are not detailed in the provided summary data, typical KPIs for Job Corps center operations under a CPIF contract would likely include metrics related to student enrollment and retention, training completion rates, academic achievement, job placement success (both in terms of percentage and wage levels), employer satisfaction with graduates, and adherence to budget targets. The 'incentive' portion of the CPIF contract is directly tied to achieving or exceeding these pre-defined KPIs. The government would monitor these metrics closely to determine the final fee paid to the contractor, ensuring that taxpayer funds are linked to tangible outcomes in workforce development.

What is the contractor's track record in managing federal contracts, particularly in the education and training sector?

Adams and Associates Inc. is the contractor for this award. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on federal contracts, especially those related to operating Job Corps centers or similar workforce development programs. Databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would provide insights into their history, including contract values, agencies served, past performance ratings, and any instances of disputes or corrective actions. A positive track record with similar large-scale training contracts would suggest a lower risk for the government and a higher likelihood of successful program execution.

How does the number of bidders (4) impact the potential value for taxpayers?

Having four bidders for this contract is a positive indicator for taxpayer value. A higher number of qualified bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing as companies vie for the award. It suggests that the market is sufficiently robust to support multiple providers for Job Corps center operations. This competition can drive down the proposed costs and encourage innovative approaches to service delivery. Conversely, if there had been only one or two bidders, it might suggest market limitations or barriers to entry, potentially leading to higher prices and less choice for the government.

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

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $94,143,515

Exercised Options: $91,920,110

Current Obligation: $60,876,841

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline