Department of Labor's Job Corps contract awarded to Management & Training Corporation for $51.8M shows a 5-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $51,817,820 ($51.8M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2011-01-27

End Date: 2016-06-22

Contract Duration: 1,973 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.3K/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: SEDRO WOOLLEY, SKAGIT County, WASHINGTON, 98284

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $51.8 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 value of $51.8 million over approximately 5 years suggests a significant investment in youth vocational training. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which can incentivize cost control and performance but also carries inherent risk. 4. The duration of the contract (1973 days) is substantial, implying a long-term need for these services. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to a specialized service within the education and training sector. 6. The contractor, Management & Training Corporation, has a track record that warrants examination for performance and reliability in similar programs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $51.8 million contract requires more granular data on the scope of services and the number of youth served. However, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests a willingness to pay for performance, which can be a positive indicator if managed effectively. Without comparable contract data for similar vocational training programs of this scale, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The contract's duration of nearly five years indicates a substantial commitment, and the pricing should reflect efficient service delivery over this period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service quality. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by promoting a marketplace where contractors vie for the best price and performance, potentially leading to cost savings and improved service delivery for the Job Corps program.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are young individuals aged 16-24 who receive vocational training and job placement assistance. The services delivered include career training, education, and support to help participants secure employment. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in the areas served by the specific Job Corps center(s) managed under this contract, with potential national implications for workforce development. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for instructors, administrators, and support staff at the training facilities, as well as the development of a skilled labor pool for various industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The CPIF contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored, as the government bears costs plus an incentive fee.
The long duration of the contract may present challenges in adapting to evolving labor market needs without contract modifications.
Performance metrics and incentive structures within the CPIF must be robust to ensure desired outcomes for youth training.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant program like Job Corps could pose risks if contractor performance falters.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded a qualified contractor.
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, if well-defined, can align contractor incentives with program goals and performance.
The substantial investment indicates a commitment to youth development and workforce readiness.
The contractor, Management & Training Corporation, likely possesses experience in managing large-scale training programs.

Sector Analysis

The vocational training sector is a critical component of the broader education and workforce development industry. This contract falls under the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' category, serving a niche but vital role in preparing young adults for employment. Spending in this sector is influenced by economic conditions, labor market demands, and government priorities for workforce development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale youth training initiatives or contracts for similar educational services.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was not targeted towards small businesses. However, the prime contractor, Management & Training Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill certain aspects of the contract. The extent of subcontracting to small businesses would need further investigation to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside within the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Accountability measures would be embedded in the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, performance work statements, and regular reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific operational details may be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
YouthBuild Program
Federal Job Training Programs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (CPIF)
Performance Monitoring Complexity
Long-Term Service Delivery Dependency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $51.8 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 (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $51.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-01-27. End: 2016-06-22.

What is the historical performance record of Management & Training Corporation with the Department of Labor or similar federal agencies?

Assessing the historical performance of Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is crucial for understanding their reliability and effectiveness in managing federal contracts, particularly in the realm of vocational training. A review of past contracts awarded to MTC by the Department of Labor and other agencies would reveal their track record in areas such as program completion rates, participant job placement success, adherence to budget, and compliance with federal regulations. Data from contract performance evaluations, past performance questionnaires, and any documented disputes or corrective actions would provide valuable insights. For instance, if MTC has a history of consistently meeting or exceeding performance targets in similar youth training programs, it suggests a lower risk for this current contract. Conversely, a pattern of underperformance or compliance issues would raise significant concerns about their ability to successfully execute the Job Corps program and deliver value for taxpayer dollars.

How does the awarded amount of $51.8 million compare to the cost of similar youth vocational training programs managed by other federal agencies or contractors?

To benchmark the value of this $51.8 million contract for the Job Corps program, a comparative analysis with similar federal youth vocational training initiatives is necessary. This involves identifying contracts with comparable scopes of work, target populations (e.g., disadvantaged youth), service delivery models (e.g., residential vs. non-residential), and contract durations. For example, comparing the cost per participant or cost per training hour across different programs can reveal significant variations. If other programs achieve similar outcomes at a lower cost, it might indicate that this contract's pricing is not optimal. Conversely, if this contract supports a more comprehensive suite of services or serves a harder-to-reach population, a higher cost might be justified. Without specific data on comparable programs, it is difficult to definitively assess whether $51.8 million represents excellent, fair, or questionable value for money.

What are the specific performance metrics and incentive structures within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) agreement, and how are they designed to ensure program effectiveness?

The effectiveness of this Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract hinges on the clarity and robustness of its performance metrics and incentive structures. The CPIF model allows the contractor to earn a fee based on actual costs plus an incentive fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-defined targets. Key questions include: What specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals are established for participant outcomes, such as job placement rates, wage levels achieved, and credential attainment? How are these metrics weighted, and what are the thresholds for achieving target, minimum, and maximum incentive fees? Furthermore, are the incentives aligned with the broader goals of the Job Corps program, such as long-term self-sufficiency for participants? A well-designed CPIF should encourage the contractor to not only control costs but also to maximize the quality and impact of the training provided, thereby ensuring better value for taxpayers and improved futures for the youth served.

What is the historical spending trend for the Job Corps program under similar contracts over the past decade?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for the Job Corps program over the past decade provides essential context for evaluating the current $51.8 million award. This involves examining the total obligated amounts, contract types, and durations of previous Job Corps contracts, particularly those managed by the Department of Labor. Understanding whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing can indicate shifts in program priorities, funding levels, or the scale of operations. For instance, a significant increase in spending compared to previous periods might warrant scrutiny to ensure it is justified by expanded scope or inflation, rather than simply cost escalation. Conversely, a decrease might signal reduced program reach or efficiency. Examining the distribution of spending across different contractors and service areas can also reveal patterns in market dynamics and contractor concentration within the Job Corps ecosystem.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type in the context of vocational training, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type, while designed to incentivize performance, carries inherent risks, especially in a service-oriented program like vocational training. A primary risk is that the government may end up paying higher costs than anticipated if the contractor's cost accounting is not rigorously audited or if the 'incentive' portion drives up the fee significantly without a commensurate increase in value. For vocational training, there's also a risk that the focus on measurable outcomes for the incentive fee might inadvertently lead to 'teaching to the test' or neglecting crucial but harder-to-quantify aspects of participant development, such as soft skills or long-term career counseling. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust government oversight, detailed cost audits, clear and comprehensive performance metrics that capture a holistic view of program success, and strong negotiation of the fee structure. The Department of Labor's contract administration team plays a critical role in monitoring expenditures and performance to ensure the CPIF structure effectively serves the program's objectives and protects taxpayer interests.

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: DOLJ10SA00001

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 N MARKET PLACE DR STE 100, CENTERVILLE, UT, 84014

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $94,643,854

Exercised Options: $62,634,711

Current Obligation: $51,817,820

Actual Outlays: $251,150

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline