Department of Labor's $548M Job Corps Center contract awarded to Adams and Associates Inc. for operational support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $54,810,121 ($54.8M)

Contractor: Adams and Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2008-06-26

End Date: 2013-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,983 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION OF THE SHRIVER JOB CORPS CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: AYER, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01432

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $54.8 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: OPERATION OF THE SHRIVER JOB CORPS CENTER Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in workforce development programs. 2. Competition dynamics for this large-scale service contract warrant further examination. 3. Performance history and cost control measures are key risk indicators. 4. The duration and value suggest a long-term commitment to the service provider. 5. This contract positions Adams and Associates Inc. as a key player in federal education and training services. 6. The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code indicates a focus on specialized vocational training.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests an attempt to align contractor incentives with cost efficiency, but the total obligated amount of $548 million over its life indicates a substantial financial commitment. Comparisons to similar large-scale Job Corps center operations would be necessary to definitively assess value for money. The contract's duration and scale suggest that if performance is satisfactory, it could represent reasonable value, but potential cost overruns inherent in CPIF contracts remain a consideration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders likely had the opportunity to submit proposals. This competitive process is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The number of bidders and the evaluation criteria used would provide further insight into the strength of the competition. A robust competition at this scale can lead to better terms and conditions for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude helps ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the individuals enrolled in the Job Corps program, who receive vocational training and support services. The contract delivers operational management and support for a Job Corps center, ensuring the continuity of training programs. The geographic impact is localized to the specific Job Corps center operated under this contract, likely in Massachusetts given the 'ST: MA' designation. Workforce implications include employment for the staff operating the center and the development of skills for program participants.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns with CPIF contract type if not closely monitored.
Ensuring consistent quality of training and services across the contract duration.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical workforce development services.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure aims to incentivize cost efficiency.
Long contract duration may indicate stable and satisfactory performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Education and Training Services sector, specifically related to vocational and technical education. The market for operating large-scale federal training centers is specialized, often involving established education providers or non-profit organizations with a track record in workforce development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other federal contracts for operating similar educational facilities or large-scale training initiatives, which can vary significantly based on scope and location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (SB: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. However, the prime contractor, Adams and Associates Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill certain aspects of the contract. The extent of subcontracting to small businesses would need to be assessed to understand the impact on the small business ecosystem. Without specific subcontracting plans, it's difficult to gauge the direct benefit to small businesses from this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to program specific reporting requirements. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract. Transparency is usually maintained through contract award databases and public reporting on program performance.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in CPIF contracts.
Need for robust performance monitoring to ensure service quality.
Dependence on contractor for critical workforce development services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $54.8 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC. OPERATION OF THE SHRIVER JOB CORPS 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 $54.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-06-26. End: 2013-11-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for the operation of this specific Shriver Job Corps Center?

The provided data shows a single definitive contract awarded to Adams and Associates Inc. for the 'OPERATION OF THE SHRIVER JOB CORPS CENTER' with a total obligated amount of $548,101,211. This contract was awarded on June 26, 2008, and had an end date of November 30, 2013, with a duration of 1983 days. Without access to historical contract data prior to this award or subsequent contracts for the same center, it is difficult to establish a comprehensive spending pattern. However, this single award indicates a significant, long-term investment in the center's operations by the Department of Labor during that period.

How does the per-unit cost of training or service delivery compare to other Job Corps centers or similar federal training programs?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for this contract is challenging without detailed operational data, such as the number of students trained, the specific services provided per student, and the cost breakdown of those services. The contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) also complicates direct per-unit cost comparisons as it allows for variable costs plus incentives. To benchmark effectively, one would need to gather similar data from other Job Corps centers or comparable federal workforce development programs, normalize for program scope and student demographics, and then calculate a comparable per-student cost. This analysis is beyond the scope of the provided data.

What is the track record of Adams and Associates Inc. in managing federal contracts, particularly in the education and training sector?

Adams and Associates Inc. has a history of managing federal contracts, as evidenced by this significant award from the Department of Labor. To fully assess their track record, a review of their contract performance history across all federal agencies would be necessary. This would include examining past performance evaluations, any instances of contract disputes or terminations, and their success in meeting performance objectives and cost targets on previous agreements. Their experience with the Job Corps program specifically, as indicated by this contract, suggests a level of familiarity and capability in this specialized area of federal service provision.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of the Shriver Job Corps Center operations under this contract?

The provided contract data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of the Shriver Job Corps Center operations. Typically, for Job Corps contracts, KPIs would focus on student outcomes such as graduation rates, job placement rates, wage attainment post-placement, and employer satisfaction. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure implies that certain performance metrics would be tied to incentive payments, suggesting that the government established specific targets for the contractor to meet or exceed. A detailed review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and performance clauses would be required to identify these specific KPIs.

What is the potential risk associated with the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type for this large-scale service operation?

The primary risk associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract is the potential for cost overruns if the incentive structure is not well-defined or if the base costs are underestimated. While CPIF aims to incentivize efficiency by sharing cost savings or rewarding performance against targets, it still allows the contractor to recover allowable costs. This means the government bears the risk of cost increases, albeit with potential for shared savings or bonuses if targets are met. Effective oversight, clear performance metrics, and robust cost accounting by the contracting agency are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for taxpayer money.

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

Solicitation ID: DOLJ07RFP0002

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, Subchapter S Corporation

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $102,738,236

Exercised Options: $72,831,203

Current Obligation: $54,810,121

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline