Labor Dept. Spends $34M on Transportation Union Training, Lacking Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,007,080 ($34.0M)

Contractor: Transportation Communications Union/Iam

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2013-05-31

End Date: 2018-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,734 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Transportation

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF NATIONAL TRAINING CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION UNION.

Place of Performance

Location: ROCKVILLE, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20850

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $34.0 million to TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF NATIONAL TRAINING CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION UNION. Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $34 million awarded. 2. Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing. 3. Long contract duration (over 4 years) may not reflect current needs. 4. Focus on apprenticeship training within the transportation sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a lack of competition, makes it difficult to assess value. Without benchmarks or competitive bids, it's hard to determine if $34 million was a fair price for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers as there was no market pressure to offer competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition suggests that taxpayers may have paid more than necessary for these training services.

Public Impact

Union members likely benefited from enhanced skills and career development. Potential for increased efficiency and safety in transportation communication. Taxpayer funds were directed towards workforce development in a critical sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration

Positive Signals

Supports workforce development
Addresses specific industry needs

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the transportation sector, specifically focusing on communication and apprenticeship training. Benchmarks for similar large-scale, long-term training contracts are difficult to establish without competitive data.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded to small businesses. There is no information provided on whether small businesses were subcontracted or had opportunities to compete.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests potential oversight gaps. Further review would be needed to understand the justification for the sole-source award and ensure accountability.

Related Government Programs

Apprenticeship Training
Department of Labor Contracting
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks transparency and competition.
Cost-plus contract type can incentivize higher spending.
Long contract duration may not reflect evolving needs.
Absence of performance metrics hinders effectiveness assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $34.0 million to TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM. IGF::OT::IGF NATIONAL TRAINING CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION UNION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM.

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 $34.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-05-31. End: 2018-02-28.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative competitive strategies considered?

The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source award. A thorough review would require accessing the contract file to understand the agency's justification, such as unique capabilities of the vendor or urgent needs. Without this documentation, it's impossible to ascertain if competitive strategies were adequately explored or if the sole-source decision was fully warranted.

How was the 'fixed fee' determined in this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, and does it align with industry standards for similar training programs?

In a CPFF contract, the fixed fee is negotiated at the outset and represents the contractor's profit. Determining if this fee was appropriate requires analyzing the contract's scope, complexity, and the contractor's estimated costs. Benchmarking against similar, competitively awarded training contracts would be essential to assess if the fee was reasonable and reflected fair market value.

What measurable outcomes or performance metrics were established for this apprenticeship training contract, and how was their achievement tracked?

The available data does not specify performance metrics or outcomes for the apprenticeship training. Effective oversight would necessitate clear, measurable goals related to skill acquisition, job placement rates, or program completion. Understanding how the agency monitored the contractor's performance against these (or any) metrics is crucial for evaluating the contract's overall effectiveness and return on investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Apprenticeship Training

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: DOL121RP20505

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3 RESEARCH PL, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $230,195,222

Exercised Options: $46,584,543

Current Obligation: $34,007,080

Actual Outlays: $19,510

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline