Department of Labor's $53.7M contract for youth vocational services awarded to Chugach Government Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,715,151 ($53.7M)

Contractor: Chugach Government Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2008-09-05

End Date: 2013-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,821 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVIDE VOCATIONAL AND ACADEMIC SERVICES TO YOUTHS AGED 16 TO 24 YEARS OLD IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.

Place of Performance

Location: PALMER, MATANUSKA SUSITNA County, ALASKA, 99645

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $53.7 million to CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: PROVIDE VOCATIONAL AND ACADEMIC SERVICES TO YOUTHS AGED 16 TO 24 YEARS OLD IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY. Key points: 1. Contract provides essential vocational and academic services to at-risk youth. 2. Long-term contract duration (over 5 years) suggests a sustained need for these services. 3. Awarded as 'Not Available for Competition,' raising questions about market research and potential alternatives. 4. Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type allows for shared savings and performance incentives. 5. Services are delivered in a residential facility, indicating a comprehensive support model. 6. The contract's value is significant, underscoring the importance of effective program management and oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $53.7 million over approximately five years for vocational and academic services to youth is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for youth development programs is challenging without more specific service details and geographic scope. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure suggests an attempt to control costs while incentivizing performance, but the ultimate value-for-money depends heavily on the effectiveness of the services delivered and the contractor's ability to meet performance targets. Without comparative data on per-participant costs or program outcomes, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'Not Available for Competition' designation. This typically implies that the agency determined that only one source was capable of fulfilling the requirement, possibly due to unique capabilities, existing infrastructure, or specific program needs. The lack of open competition means that the government did not benefit from a broader range of proposals or potentially lower prices that could have resulted from a competitive bidding process. Further justification for this sole-source award would be necessary to fully understand the rationale.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition may have resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through a competitive solicitation. Taxpayers may not have received the best possible value due to the limited opportunity for market forces to drive down costs.

Public Impact

Benefits at-risk youth aged 16 to 24 by providing them with vocational and academic skills. Aims to improve employment prospects and life outcomes for young individuals. Services are delivered in a residential setting, offering a structured environment for participants. The program's geographic impact is focused on Alaska, as indicated by the 'AK' state code. Potential workforce implications include equipping young people with skills needed for local industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of competition raises concerns about whether alternative, potentially more cost-effective, solutions were explored.
Cost-Plus Incentive Fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Effectiveness of vocational and academic services in achieving long-term employment outcomes needs rigorous evaluation.

Positive Signals

Addresses a critical need for youth development and workforce preparation.
The residential facility model provides a comprehensive support system for participants.
Cost-Plus Incentive Fee structure can align contractor incentives with government goals.
Long contract duration suggests a recognized and ongoing need for these services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and academic support for young adults. The market for such services often involves government agencies contracting with specialized providers to address social and economic needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within federal and state programs aimed at youth employment, job training, and re-entry services. The size of this contract suggests a significant program initiative by the Department of Labor to address youth unemployment and skill gaps.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a stated factor in this award ('ss': false, 'sb': false). As a sole-source contract, there were likely no specific small business set-aside requirements or subcontracting goals mandated. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in delivering these services were not actively pursued through this specific contract vehicle. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to negative, as no direct opportunities were created.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. As a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract, performance metrics and financial reporting would be critical components of oversight to ensure that the contractor is meeting objectives and managing costs effectively. Transparency would depend on the agency's reporting practices regarding program outcomes and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Job Corps
YouthBuild
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs
Youth Employment Programs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential value.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data hinders outcome assessment.
CPIF contracts require diligent oversight to ensure cost control and performance.
Effectiveness of residential vocational training for long-term youth success needs validation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $53.7 million to CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.. PROVIDE VOCATIONAL AND ACADEMIC SERVICES TO YOUTHS AGED 16 TO 24 YEARS OLD IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, 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 $53.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-05. End: 2013-08-31.

What specific vocational and academic programs are offered under this contract, and what are the expected outcomes for participants?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'VOCATIONAL AND ACADEMIC SERVICES TO YOUTHS AGED 16 TO 24 YEARS OLD IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.' However, the specific curriculum, trades taught, or academic subjects covered are not detailed. Expected outcomes would typically include improved academic standing, acquisition of marketable job skills, successful placement into employment or further education, and reduced recidivism or reliance on social services. A thorough review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and performance metrics would be necessary to ascertain the precise services and desired results. Without this, it's difficult to quantify the program's success beyond the broad goals of youth development.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis, and what market research was conducted?

The contract was designated as 'Not Available for Competition,' indicating a sole-source award. Agencies typically sole-source contracts when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs. This could be due to unique technical expertise, proprietary technology, or specific circumstances where competition is not feasible or not in the government's best interest. The extent of market research conducted prior to this determination is not specified in the provided data. A justification for the sole-source award, often found in contract files, would detail the rationale and any market research performed to confirm the lack of viable alternatives.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure work for this contract, and what are the key performance indicators (KPIs)?

A Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract is designed to share the risks and rewards between the government and the contractor. The contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs and receives a fixed fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-determined targets. For this contract, the 'incentive' aspect likely relates to achieving specific outcomes in vocational training, academic achievement, or job placement rates for the youth served. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) would be defined in the contract's SOW and would dictate how the incentive fee is calculated. Examples could include graduation rates, skill certification attainment, or post-program employment retention.

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

The provided data shows a single definitive contract awarded in 2008 with an end date in 2013, totaling $53.7 million. This suggests a significant, long-term investment in youth vocational and academic services. To understand the broader historical spending pattern, one would need to examine other contracts awarded by the Department of Labor (and potentially other agencies) for similar youth development and training programs over a longer period. This would involve searching federal procurement databases for contracts with agencies like ETA, OJJDP, or state workforce agencies, looking at trends in contract values, durations, and types of services provided.

What is the geographic scope of this contract, and are there similar programs in other regions?

The contract specifies 'AK' for Alaska as the state code ('st': 'AK') and 'ALASKA' as the state name ('sn': 'ALASKA'). This indicates that the services are intended for youth within Alaska and likely delivered at a residential facility located there. The Department of Labor and other federal agencies fund numerous youth employment and training programs across the country. While this specific contract is geographically limited to Alaska, similar initiatives exist nationwide, often administered through state and local workforce development boards, or through large-scale federal programs like Job Corps, which has centers in various states.

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 AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: DOLJ09SA00003

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chugach Alaska Corporation (UEI: 071844021)

Address: 3800 CENTERPOINT DR STE 601, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $56,801,751

Exercised Options: $56,801,751

Current Obligation: $53,715,151

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline