Department of Labor's $58.3M contract for Charleston Job Corps Center operations awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $58,345,973 ($58.3M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2006-01-01

End Date: 2011-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,915 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATE THE CHARLESTON JOB CORPS CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLESTON, KANAWHA County, WEST VIRGINIA, 25311

State: West Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $58.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: OPERATE THE CHARLESTON JOB CORPS CENTER Key points: 1. The contract's value of $58.3 million over its duration suggests a significant investment in vocational training. 2. Management & Training Corporation, as the sole awardee, highlights a specific capability or market position. 3. The contract's duration of 1915 days (approximately 5.2 years) indicates a long-term commitment to service delivery. 4. The award type 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' implies a firm commitment for a specified period and quantity. 5. The pricing structure 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' suggests performance-based incentives tied to cost and other metrics. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates the contract was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract requires more granular data on the scope of services and the number of students served. However, the total award of $58.3 million over approximately 5.2 years averages to roughly $11.2 million annually. This figure needs to be compared against the operational costs of similar Job Corps centers nationwide to assess value for money. The 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' structure implies that the government aims to control costs through performance incentives, which can be a positive indicator if well-structured.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. While the data shows only one awardee, this does not necessarily mean there was only one bidder. The process likely involved multiple proposals, and Management & Training Corporation was selected as the best value. The level of competition is crucial for ensuring fair pricing and encouraging efficient service delivery.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower prices and higher quality services through the selection of the most capable offeror.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are students enrolled in the Charleston Job Corps Center, who receive vocational training and educational services. The contract delivers essential services aimed at improving workforce readiness and employability for young adults. The geographic impact is concentrated in West Virginia, providing local economic benefits through job creation and training opportunities. Workforce implications include direct employment for the contractor's staff operating the center and indirect benefits from placing graduates into the workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if incentive fee structure is not tightly managed.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical social program.
Risk of service quality degradation if performance metrics are not rigorously monitored.

Positive Signals

Long-term contract award suggests contractor stability and proven performance.
Full and open competition indicates a structured procurement process.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure aims to align contractor and government interests for efficiency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' (NAICS 611519) sector, which is part of the broader education and training services industry. The Job Corps program is a significant federal initiative focused on vocational training for at-risk youth. Spending in this sector is driven by government funding for workforce development and education. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the per-student operational costs of other Job Corps centers or similar vocational training programs funded by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that large businesses were eligible to compete and were likely the primary participants. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests that the scale or nature of the services required may not have been conducive to such a designation, or that the competition yielded a large business as the best value. There are no explicit subcontracting requirements mentioned in the provided data, but large prime contractors are often encouraged or required to engage small businesses in their subcontracting plans.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Accountability measures are likely embedded within the 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' structure, linking contractor payment to performance outcomes. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS-NG, where contract awards are reported. Specific Inspector General jurisdiction would typically cover the Department of Labor's programs, including the Job Corps.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs
Other Federal Job Training Programs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Adult Education and Literacy Programs

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may indicate stability but also potential for complacency.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts require careful monitoring to ensure cost control.
Sole awardee in a competitive process warrants scrutiny of the evaluation criteria.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $58.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. OPERATE THE CHARLESTON JOB CORPS CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $58.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-01. End: 2011-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Charleston Job Corps Center operations?

Historical spending data for the Charleston Job Corps Center operations prior to this specific $58.3 million award is not detailed in the provided snippet. However, the contract's start date of January 1, 2006, and end date of March 31, 2011, indicate a period of approximately 5 years and 3 months. The total award amount of $58,345,973 suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $11.2 million. To understand the historical pattern, one would need to examine prior contracts for this center, looking at award amounts, durations, and contractors to identify trends in cost, service scope, and contractor stability over time. This would help determine if spending has increased or decreased and if the current award represents a significant shift.

How does the cost per student for this contract compare to other Job Corps centers?

The provided data does not include the number of students served by the Charleston Job Corps Center under this contract, making a direct per-unit cost comparison impossible. To perform such an analysis, one would need to obtain the average daily enrollment or the total number of students trained over the contract period. Once that figure is available, it could be divided into the total contract value ($58.3 million) to derive a cost per student. This calculated cost would then need to be benchmarked against the average cost per student at other Job Corps centers nationwide, data which is typically available through Department of Labor reports or program evaluations. Without student enrollment figures, any cost comparison remains speculative.

What is Management & Training Corporation's track record with federal contracts, particularly in operating Job Corps centers?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is a significant federal contractor with a substantial history of operating Job Corps centers and other workforce development programs. While this specific contract details one award, MTC operates numerous Job Corps centers across the country under various contracts with the Department of Labor. Their track record generally involves managing large-scale training facilities, providing academic and vocational instruction, and placing graduates into employment. A comprehensive assessment of their track record would involve reviewing performance evaluations, contract modifications, and any past disputes or successes across their entire federal contract portfolio, not just this single award. Their longevity and continued awards suggest a generally satisfactory performance history, though specific outcomes can vary by center and contract.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used in this Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract?

The provided data snippet for this contract does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that underpin the 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' (CPIF) structure. Typically, for Job Corps center operations, KPIs would focus on student outcomes such as graduation rates, job placement rates, average wages of placed graduates, and retention in employment. Other potential KPIs could include student satisfaction, timely completion of training programs, adherence to budget targets, and facility maintenance standards. The incentive fee portion of the contract would be directly tied to the contractor's performance against these pre-defined metrics, rewarding exceeding targets and potentially penalizing underperformance.

What is the risk profile associated with operating a Job Corps center, and how is it managed under this contract?

Operating a Job Corps center involves several risks, including challenges in recruiting and retaining eligible youth, ensuring program quality and relevance to labor market demands, managing facility operations and safety, and achieving positive student outcomes. Under this 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' contract, the risk is shared between the government and the contractor. The government bears the risk of cost overruns if performance targets are not met efficiently, while the contractor assumes risk related to achieving specific performance incentives. The 'full and open competition' process aims to mitigate risk by selecting a contractor with a proven ability to manage these challenges. Furthermore, the government's oversight and the CPIF structure itself are designed to incentivize the contractor to proactively manage risks and deliver successful outcomes.

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: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 NORTH MARKETPLACE DR, CENTERVILLE, UT, 84014

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,370,844,908

Exercised Options: $2,025,213,784

Current Obligation: $58,345,973

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline