Labor Department awards $19.8M technical school contract to Adams and Associates Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,777,527 ($19.8M)

Contractor: Adams and Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2013-12-01

End Date: 2015-11-30

Contract Duration: 729 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF NEW CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: BOSTON, SUFFOLK County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02203

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $19.8 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF NEW CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries inherent risk. 3. The duration of 729 days indicates a medium-term engagement for services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized technical and trade school services. 5. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Adams and Associates Inc. 6. The contract value is approximately $19.8 million over its term.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the government, but the cost-reimbursement aspect requires diligent oversight to ensure efficiency. Comparing this to similar contracts for technical and trade school services would require access to detailed pricing structures and scope of work for those contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While competition is generally beneficial for price discovery, the exact number of bidders does not always correlate directly with the optimal price outcome without further analysis of the bid proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely students or individuals seeking training through the technical and trade school services provided under this contract. The services delivered are expected to be in the realm of vocational or technical education and training. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in Massachusetts, where the contract is being performed. Workforce implications could include the employment of instructors, administrative staff, and support personnel by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts require robust oversight to manage cost overruns.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may not have driven the most aggressive pricing.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess value for money.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a broad range of potential offerors.
The fixed fee component provides a degree of cost predictability for the government.
The contract supports essential training and educational services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on technical and trade schools. The market for such services is driven by demand for skilled labor across various industries. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other government contracts for vocational training, educational program development, and specialized skill instruction, considering factors like duration, scope, and contractor experience.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem mandated by this award. The primary contractor, Adams and Associates Inc., is likely a larger entity if it was not specifically targeted for small business programs.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and the fixed fee structure. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Workforce Development Programs
Vocational Education Grants
Job Training Contracts
Adult Education Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may impact price negotiation.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $19.8 million to ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC. IGF::OT::IGF NEW CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-12-01. End: 2015-11-30.

What is the track record of Adams and Associates Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in the education and training sector?

A review of federal contract databases would be necessary to fully assess Adams and Associates Inc.'s track record. This would involve examining past performance on similar contracts, including their size, duration, and the agencies they have served. Specific attention should be paid to any past performance evaluations, awards, or disputes. Understanding their history with Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts would also be crucial to gauge their experience in managing government funds under such arrangements. Without this specific data, it is difficult to provide a detailed assessment of their contractor performance.

How does the $19.8 million contract value compare to similar technical and trade school contracts awarded by the federal government?

To benchmark the $19.8 million contract value, one would need to compare it against other federal contracts for technical and trade school services with similar scopes of work, durations, and target populations. Factors such as the specific skills being taught, the number of individuals to be trained, and the geographic region of service delivery would influence pricing. A preliminary comparison suggests this is a significant award, but its value-for-money can only be truly assessed against comparable procurements. Without access to detailed pricing data from other contracts, a precise comparison is not feasible.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks with a CPFF contract of this magnitude include potential cost overruns, where the contractor's actual costs exceed the estimated costs, although the fixed fee provides a ceiling on profit. There's also a risk of scope creep if the requirements are not clearly defined, leading to increased costs without commensurate benefit. Contractor performance is a key risk; if the contractor fails to deliver the expected quality or quantity of services, the government may not achieve its objectives despite the expenditure. Ensuring adequate government oversight to monitor costs and performance is critical to mitigating these risks.

What specific performance metrics or deliverables are expected under this contract to ensure program effectiveness?

The provided data does not specify the exact performance metrics or deliverables for this contract. Typically, contracts for educational and training services would include metrics related to student enrollment, completion rates, skill attainment, job placement rates, and participant satisfaction. The effectiveness of the program would be measured against these defined outcomes. Without access to the contract's statement of work and performance work statement, a detailed analysis of expected outcomes and their measurement is not possible.

What has been the historical spending pattern for technical and trade school services by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) for technical and trade school services would require accessing historical procurement data over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract awards, average contract values, and the types of services most frequently procured. Understanding this history can provide context for the current $19.8 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical investment or a significant increase in spending for this category. Such analysis would help in assessing the agency's commitment to vocational training initiatives.

How does the competition level (2 bidders) impact the government's ability to negotiate favorable terms and pricing?

A competition level with only two bidders suggests a moderate rather than robust competitive environment. While competition is present, it limits the government's leverage in negotiations compared to a scenario with numerous bids. With fewer bidders, there is a higher chance that the offered prices might not be as aggressively competitive as they could be with more alternatives. This situation necessitates careful evaluation of the bids received to ensure that the selected offer represents the best value, considering both price and technical factors, and that the government has negotiated the most favorable terms possible under the circumstances.

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: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10395 DOUBLE R BLVD, RENO, NV, 89521

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,740,551

Exercised Options: $22,090,064

Current Obligation: $19,777,527

Actual Outlays: $42,328

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline