Department of Labor's Job Corps contract awarded to Management & Training Corporation for $79.6M shows a 2007 duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $79,572,954 ($79.6M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2009-10-01

End Date: 2015-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: JOB CORPS IS A VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24.

Place of Performance

Location: ASTORIA, CLATSOP County, OREGON, 97103

State: Oregon Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $79.6 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: JOB CORPS IS A VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24. Key points: 1. The contract's duration of 2007 years is exceptionally long, raising questions about adaptability and potential for cost overruns. 2. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type suggests performance-based incentives, but requires careful monitoring to ensure value. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to vocational training services, a critical area for youth development. 5. The contract's significant value suggests a substantial investment in workforce development programs. 6. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting flags warrants further investigation into small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total award value of $79.6 million over a 2007-year duration is difficult to benchmark without more granular data on services provided and performance outcomes. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure implies that contractor performance directly impacts profit, which can be a good mechanism for value if incentives are well-aligned with program goals. However, the extended duration raises concerns about potential price creep and the need for continuous oversight to ensure the government is receiving good value for its investment. Without comparable contracts for similar vocational training programs of this scale and duration, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing. However, the specific number of bidders and the details of the bidding process are not provided, which limits a deeper analysis of the competitive landscape. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive indicator for taxpayer value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality. It ensures that the government explores a wide range of potential providers, increasing the likelihood of securing the best possible terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are youth aged 16-24 seeking vocational training and employment opportunities. The contract supports the delivery of vocational training services, aiming to equip young individuals with job skills. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where Job Corps centers are located, potentially benefiting local economies through job creation and skill development. Workforce implications include the training and potential placement of young adults into the civilian workforce, addressing labor market needs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exceptionally long contract duration (2007 years) is a significant concern, potentially indicating outdated contract management or a lack of flexibility.
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, while performance-based, can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed and if incentives are not perfectly aligned with desired outcomes.
Lack of specific data on small business participation raises questions about opportunities for smaller entities in this large contract.
The absence of detailed performance metrics and outcomes makes it difficult to fully assess the effectiveness and value for money.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract aims to provide essential vocational training, addressing a critical need for youth development and workforce readiness.
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, if well-managed, can incentivize contractor performance and efficiency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' sector, a segment of the education and training industry focused on providing specialized vocational skills. The market for such services is driven by the demand for a skilled workforce and government initiatives aimed at youth employment and development. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale government contracts for workforce development, job training, and educational services, considering factors like student capacity, program scope, and duration.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). The absence of explicit subcontracting requirements or targets in the summary data means that the extent of small business involvement is unclear. For a contract of this magnitude, it is crucial to understand if and how small businesses are being leveraged to deliver services or provide specialized support, as this impacts the broader small business ecosystem and opportunities for growth.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Given the contract's nature and value, robust oversight mechanisms would be expected, including regular performance reviews, financial audits, and monitoring of service delivery against established metrics. Transparency would be enhanced through public reporting of program outcomes and contractor performance. The specific jurisdiction of an Inspector General would depend on the nature of any potential fraud, waste, or abuse identified.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
YouthBuild Program
Apprenticeship Programs
Adult Education and Literacy Programs

Risk Flags

Unusually long contract duration (potential data anomaly)
Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires diligent oversight
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting data
Need for detailed performance metrics and outcome data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $79.6 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. JOB CORPS IS A VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24.

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 $79.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-10-01. End: 2015-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Job Corps program under Management & Training Corporation?

Analyzing the historical spending for the Job Corps program under Management & Training Corporation requires access to detailed contract award data over time. The provided data shows a single award of $79.6 million with a duration that appears to be 2007 years, which is highly unusual and likely a data anomaly or misinterpretation. Assuming the 'dur' field of 2007 refers to the year the contract was awarded or a significant milestone, and the 'a' field of $79,572,954 represents the total value, we can infer a substantial investment. To understand the pattern, one would need to examine previous and subsequent contracts awarded to MTC or other entities for Job Corps, looking at trends in award values, contract types, and durations. This would reveal if spending has increased or decreased, if contract types have shifted (e.g., from cost-plus to fixed-price), and how the program's scale has evolved. Without more comprehensive historical data, a detailed pattern analysis is not possible.

How does the per-unit cost of training under this contract compare to similar vocational training programs?

Determining the per-unit cost of training requires specific data on the number of trainees served and the total cost associated with their training. The provided data includes the total contract value ($79.6 million) and the program description (vocational training for youth). However, it lacks the number of individuals trained or the duration of training per individual. To perform a per-unit cost comparison, we would need to know the total number of training slots filled or the total number of training hours delivered. Benchmarking against similar programs would involve identifying other federal or state-funded vocational training initiatives, gathering their total costs and output metrics (e.g., cost per trainee, cost per training hour), and then comparing the ratios. Without these specific output metrics for this contract, a per-unit cost analysis and comparison is not feasible.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how has the contractor performed against them?

The provided data indicates the contract type is 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' (CPIF), which inherently suggests that performance is a factor in contractor compensation. However, the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that Management & Training Corporation is measured against are not detailed in this summary. Typically, for a vocational training program like Job Corps, KPIs might include metrics such as job placement rates, average wages of placed graduates, completion rates of training programs, employer satisfaction, and trainee satisfaction. To assess contractor performance, one would need to review performance reports, quality assurance assessments, and any available data on the achievement of these KPIs. The CPIF structure implies that incentives are tied to performance, so understanding the targets and outcomes related to these incentives is crucial for evaluating effectiveness and value.

What is the track record of Management & Training Corporation in managing similar government contracts?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is a known entity in the field of operating correctional facilities and providing workforce training programs. Their track record in managing government contracts, particularly for programs like Job Corps, would typically be assessed through past performance evaluations in previous contract awards. Information regarding their success in meeting performance targets, managing budgets, and adhering to regulatory requirements on prior contracts would be critical. Agencies often maintain contractor performance assessment reporting systems (CPARS) that document these evaluations. A review of MTC's history with the Department of Labor and other agencies would reveal their reliability, efficiency, and overall effectiveness in delivering services comparable to those required by this Job Corps contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration and value?

A contract with a value of $79.6 million and a duration that appears to be 2007 years (likely a data error, but if interpreted as a very long term) presents several potential risks. Firstly, the extended duration increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation and changing market conditions, especially if the pricing structure is not adequately adjusted. Secondly, long-term contracts can lead to contractor complacency, potentially reducing innovation and responsiveness to evolving needs. Thirdly, there's a risk of technological obsolescence if the services are IT-dependent or if training methodologies become outdated. Finally, the sheer scale and duration necessitate robust and continuous oversight to prevent mismanagement, ensure accountability, and guarantee that the program remains aligned with its objectives and taxpayer interests.

How does the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code influence the scope and expected outcomes of this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519, 'Other Technical and Trade Schools,' specifically categorizes establishments primarily engaged in providing technical or vocational training and instruction in a wide range of trades and occupations. For this Job Corps contract, this NAICS code signifies that the expected outcomes are focused on equipping young individuals with practical, job-ready skills in specific trades or technical fields. This contrasts with broader academic education. The scope would encompass curriculum development, hands-on training, and potentially certification preparation relevant to industries with labor demands. The expected outcomes are therefore geared towards measurable improvements in employability, such as securing employment in a trained field, achieving higher earning potential, and contributing to the skilled workforce.

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: DOLJ09SA00006

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 N MARKET PLACE DR, CENTERVILLE, UT, 84014

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $129,010,199

Exercised Options: $85,909,865

Current Obligation: $79,572,954

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline