Department of Labor's $18.5M Job Corps contract awarded to Management & Training Corporation for vocational training

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,514,186 ($18.5M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2011-04-05

End Date: 2012-03-31

Contract Duration: 361 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

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: RENO, WASHOE County, NEVADA, 89506

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $18.5 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 focuses on vocational training for youth, a critical service for workforce development. 2. Awarded to a single contractor, raising questions about competition and potential price efficiencies. 3. The contract duration of 361 days suggests a short-term operational need or a bridge to a larger procurement. 4. The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code indicates a broad scope of training services. 5. The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' contract type allows for performance-based adjustments, potentially aligning contractor incentives with program goals. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.5 million for a 361-day period appears substantial for vocational training services. Without comparable contract data for similar Job Corps centers or training programs, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value for money. The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure suggests an attempt to control costs and incentivize performance, but the ultimate cost-effectiveness depends on the specific incentive metrics and the contractor's ability to meet them. Further analysis would require understanding the scope of services provided and the number of trainees served.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary qualifications, or in specific circumstances where competition is not feasible or practical. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competitive award.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding, as the contractor did not have to compete on price or performance to win the award.

Public Impact

Young individuals aged 16-24 benefit from vocational training and career development opportunities. The services delivered aim to equip participants with skills for in-demand occupations. The contract's geographic impact is specified as Nevada (SN: NEVADA), suggesting a focus on training within that state. Workforce implications include the potential for increased employment and earning potential for program graduates.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing and innovation.
Cost-plus contract types can incentivize spending if not carefully managed.
Short contract duration (361 days) may indicate a stop-gap measure or limited scope.

Positive Signals

Focus on vocational training addresses a critical need for youth workforce development.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure can align contractor performance with government objectives.
Specific geographic focus (Nevada) allows for targeted program delivery.

Sector Analysis

The vocational training sector is a key component of the broader education and workforce development industry. This contract falls under the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' category (NAICS 611519), which encompasses institutions providing training in specific trades and technical skills. The federal government is a significant investor in workforce development programs like Job Corps, aiming to improve employment outcomes for underserved youth. Benchmarking this contract's value would ideally involve comparing its cost per trainee or cost per program outcome against similar federal, state, or private vocational training initiatives.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (SB: false). As a sole-source award, it was not subject to competition that might have included small business participation goals. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for support services.

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). Specific accountability measures would be defined within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract terms, focusing on performance metrics related to training completion, job placement, and participant outcomes. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and audits are often internal or subject to specific disclosure rules. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Job Corps Program
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Youth Training Programs
Vocational Education Grants

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may limit competition and increase costs.
Cost-plus contract types require robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Performance metrics for CPIF need careful monitoring to ensure value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $18.5 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 $18.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-04-05. End: 2012-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Job Corps program, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The Job Corps program is a long-standing federal initiative with consistent annual funding allocations, typically in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to support its nationwide network of training centers. This specific contract, valued at $18.5 million for approximately one year, represents a portion of the overall Job Corps budget, likely funding operations for a specific center or region. Historical spending trends show a commitment to youth vocational training, with fluctuations often tied to economic conditions and administration priorities. Analyzing this contract's value in isolation provides limited insight into the broader program's financial trajectory. A comprehensive view would require examining multi-year spending data for the Job Corps program, including awards for other centers, administrative costs, and program support services, to identify any significant deviations or shifts in investment.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure typically influence contractor performance and cost control in vocational training contracts?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type aims to incentivize the contractor to perform efficiently and effectively by linking a portion of their profit to achieving specific performance targets. In the context of vocational training, these targets could include metrics such as student retention rates, completion of training programs, job placement success, and starting wages of graduates. The 'cost' portion covers allowable expenses, while the 'fee' is adjusted based on performance against pre-defined goals. This structure encourages the contractor, Management & Training Corporation, to not only manage costs but also to focus on delivering high-quality training outcomes that meet or exceed the Department of Labor's objectives. However, the effectiveness of CPIF hinges on the clarity and measurability of the incentive targets and the rigor of government oversight in verifying performance data.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for a significant vocational training program like Job Corps?

A primary risk of a sole-source award is the lack of competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated costs for the government as the contractor faces no direct price competition. This can result in taxpayers potentially overpaying for the services rendered. Furthermore, sole-source awards may limit opportunities for innovation, as established contractors might be less motivated to introduce new methods or technologies compared to a competitive environment where differentiation is key. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes dependent on a single provider, potentially reducing leverage in future negotiations. For a program as critical as Job Corps, ensuring the most effective and cost-efficient service delivery is paramount, and sole-sourcing bypasses the standard mechanisms designed to achieve this.

What is the typical track record of Management & Training Corporation (MTC) in managing government contracts, particularly in the education and training sector?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) has a significant history of managing government contracts, primarily in the corrections and workforce training sectors. They operate numerous Job Corps centers and correctional facilities across the United States. Their track record includes both successes and criticisms. MTC is known for its operational capacity and experience in delivering large-scale training programs. However, like many large government contractors, they have faced scrutiny regarding contract performance, cost management, and specific incidents within facilities they manage. Reviews of MTC's performance often highlight their ability to manage complex operations but also point to areas needing improvement, such as ensuring consistent quality of services and adherence to all regulatory and contractual obligations. A thorough assessment would involve reviewing specific performance evaluations and audit reports related to their contracts.

How does the geographic focus on Nevada (SN: NEVADA) impact the overall effectiveness and scalability of this Job Corps contract?

The specific geographic focus on Nevada for this Job Corps contract allows for tailored training programs that address the unique labor market demands and opportunities within that state. This targeted approach can enhance effectiveness by ensuring that the skills being taught are relevant to local industries, potentially leading to higher job placement rates for graduates within Nevada. It also allows for more focused resource allocation and program management. However, this specificity also limits the scalability of this particular contract's model to other regions without adaptation. While the operational framework might be replicable, the curriculum and industry partnerships would likely need significant adjustments to align with the economic landscape of different states. Therefore, while effective for Nevada, its direct scalability is constrained by regional economic factors.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Other Technical and Trade Schools

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: DOLJ11SA00009

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: $18,514,186

Exercised Options: $18,514,186

Current Obligation: $18,514,186

Actual Outlays: $186,765

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline