Department of Labor awards $24.3M contract for technical and trade school services to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,276,910 ($24.3M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2011-06-28

End Date: 2017-01-31

Contract Duration: 2,044 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CONTRACT AWARD OF THE WILMINGTON JCC WHICH INCLUDES O/A AND CTS.

Place of Performance

Location: WILMINGTON, NEW CASTLE County, DELAWARE, 19802

State: Delaware Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $24.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: CONTRACT AWARD OF THE WILMINGTON JCC WHICH INCLUDES O/A AND CTS. Key points: 1. The contract value of $24.3 million over approximately 5.7 years suggests a moderate annual spend. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which can incentivize cost control but also carries inherent risk. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized vocational and technical training. 5. The award was made by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, suggesting an administrative or support function. 6. The contractor, Management & Training Corporation, has a history of government contracts, requiring assessment of their past performance. 7. The contract duration of 2044 days (approx. 5.6 years) is substantial, implying a long-term need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract award of $24.3 million for vocational training services appears to be within a reasonable range for a multi-year federal contract of this nature. Benchmarking against similar contracts for technical and trade school services would be necessary for a definitive value-for-money assessment. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests that performance targets and cost efficiencies are intended to be rewarded, which can be a positive indicator if well-managed. However, without specific performance metrics and comparison data, it is difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is optimal or if the government is receiving excellent value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which is the preferred method for federal procurements. This implies that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified, but the use of full and open competition generally suggests a healthy level of market interest and potential for competitive pricing. This approach aims to ensure that the government obtains the best possible value by leveraging market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and encourages a wider range of contractors to propose innovative solutions, potentially leading to cost savings and improved service delivery.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely individuals seeking vocational and technical training to enhance their workforce skills. The services delivered are expected to include specialized instruction and potentially job placement assistance within technical and trade fields. The geographic impact is focused on Delaware, as indicated by the 'SN' (State Name) field. Workforce implications include the potential for upskilling and reskilling of individuals, contributing to the local and potentially national labor market.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored and managed.
The long contract duration (over 5 years) increases the risk of scope creep or the need for contract modifications.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period may limit flexibility and opportunities for adopting newer training methodologies.
The specific performance metrics and incentive structures within the CPIF contract are crucial for ensuring effectiveness and need careful evaluation.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a robust market engagement and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract aims to provide valuable vocational training, contributing to workforce development and individual economic opportunity.
The contractor, Management & Training Corporation, likely has experience in delivering similar government-funded training programs.
The award is managed by an administrative office, suggesting a structured procurement and oversight process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical education. The market for federal training contracts is significant, encompassing various agencies and needs, from workforce development to specialized technical skills. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts awarded for similar NAICS codes (Other Technical and Trade Schools) by agencies like the Department of Labor or other workforce-focused entities. The size of this award ($24.3M) positions it as a moderately sized contract within this sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS: false, SB: false). Therefore, the primary contractor is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Management & Training Corporation engages small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or support functions, which is not detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM). Accountability measures would be embedded within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract terms, focusing on performance metrics and cost control. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS, where contract awards are recorded. The Inspector General for the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Programs
Job Corps
Adult Education and Family Literacy Programs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Department of Labor Training Grants

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (CPIF)
Long Duration Contract
Performance Monitoring Intensity
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $24.3 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. CONTRACT AWARD OF THE WILMINGTON JCC WHICH INCLUDES O/A AND CTS.

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 $24.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-06-28. End: 2017-01-31.

What is the track record of Management & Training Corporation in delivering similar federal training contracts?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) has a significant history of operating Job Corps centers and providing other workforce training services for the federal government, primarily through the Department of Labor. They have managed numerous contracts over several decades, often involving large-scale vocational training and educational programs. Assessing their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing performance evaluations, any past disputes or contract terminations, and their success rates in meeting program objectives such as participant placement and retention. Their extensive experience suggests a familiarity with federal contracting requirements and program delivery, but a detailed review of specific contract performance data is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of their reliability and effectiveness.

How does the $24.3 million contract value compare to other federal vocational training contracts?

The $24.3 million contract value for vocational training services awarded to Management & Training Corporation is a substantial amount, reflecting a significant investment in workforce development. To benchmark this value, one would compare it against contracts awarded under similar NAICS codes (e.g., 611519 - Other Technical and Trade Schools) by various federal agencies, particularly those focused on labor and workforce. For instance, contracts for operating Job Corps centers or providing specialized technical training can range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on the scope, duration, and number of participants served. This particular award, spread over approximately 5.7 years, suggests an average annual value of around $4.2 million, which appears moderate to significant within the context of large federal training initiatives.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract for vocational training?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract for vocational training revolve around cost control and performance alignment. While CPIF aims to incentivize efficiency by sharing cost savings or rewarding performance, it can also lead to potential cost overruns if the baseline cost estimates are inaccurate or if the incentive targets are not well-defined or achievable. For the government, there's a risk that the contractor may incur higher costs than anticipated, even with incentives, especially if the training program's complexity or participant needs are underestimated. Conversely, if incentives are too aggressive or poorly structured, the contractor might focus on meeting easily achievable targets rather than delivering the highest quality or most impactful training. Effective management requires robust oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and that the incentives truly drive desired outcomes in participant skill development and employment.

What is the expected impact of this contract on workforce development in Delaware?

This contract is expected to have a positive impact on workforce development in Delaware by providing specialized vocational and technical training. The services delivered under this contract aim to equip individuals with in-demand skills, potentially leading to improved employment opportunities and higher earning potential for participants. By focusing on technical and trade schools, the program likely addresses specific labor market needs within the state, helping to fill skill gaps in various industries. This can contribute to a more skilled local workforce, benefiting both employees and employers in Delaware, and potentially boosting the state's overall economic competitiveness.

How does the 'full and open competition' procurement method influence the value received by taxpayers?

The 'full and open competition' procurement method is designed to maximize value for taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment. By allowing all responsible sources to submit proposals, the government increases the pool of potential offerors, which typically drives down prices through market competition. This method encourages innovation as contractors strive to differentiate their offerings to win the contract. Furthermore, it provides transparency and ensures that the government is not limited to a single provider, reducing the risk of non-competitive pricing or complacency. Taxpayers benefit from potentially lower contract costs, better quality services, and a wider array of solutions tailored to government needs.

What are the implications of the contract being awarded to Management & Training Corporation for over 5 years?

Awarding this contract to Management & Training Corporation for a duration of over five years (2044 days) implies a long-term commitment by the Department of Labor to the services provided. For the contractor, it offers stability and the opportunity to invest in program development and infrastructure. For the government, it allows for continuity of services and potentially deeper integration of the training programs. However, such long durations also carry risks, including potential vendor lock-in, reduced flexibility to adapt to changing labor market needs or technological advancements, and the possibility of performance degradation over time if oversight is not consistently rigorous. Regular performance reviews and contract management are crucial to ensure continued value and effectiveness throughout the contract's lifespan.

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 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: $320,778,155

Exercised Options: $150,583,885

Current Obligation: $24,276,910

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline