Transportation awards $114.5M for Air Traffic Field Facilities Training, with 3 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $114,529,192 ($114.5M)

Contractor: THE Washington Consulting Group Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2006-03-22

End Date: 2008-09-01

Contract Duration: 894 days

Daily Burn Rate: $128.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRAINING SUPPORT FOR AIR TRAFFIC FIELD FACILITIES (TSAT)

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20814

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $114.5 million to THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC for work described as: TRAINING SUPPORT FOR AIR TRAFFIC FIELD FACILITIES (TSAT) Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the firm-fixed-price contract type and competitive nature. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a healthy market for professional development training services. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract potentially shifting some risk to the contractor. 4. Performance context is tied to essential air traffic control training, crucial for safety. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the professional services segment supporting government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $114.5 million over its period of performance suggests a significant investment in training. While direct comparisons are difficult without more granular data on training hours and scope, the firm-fixed-price nature generally promotes cost control. The number of bidders (3) indicates some level of competition, which should help ensure a fair price. Benchmarking against similar large-scale training contracts would provide a clearer picture of value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. Three bidders participated in the competition, suggesting a moderate level of market interest and engagement. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery, as it allows for a range of proposals to be evaluated.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process like this helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

Air traffic controllers and related personnel benefit from enhanced training, improving operational safety. Essential services for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are delivered, supporting national airspace management. The geographic impact is national, as FAA facilities are located across the United States. Workforce implications include the development and retention of skilled air traffic control professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if training requirements are not clearly defined.
Contractor performance risk if training quality does not meet FAA standards.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure incentivizes contractor efficiency.
Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for competitive pricing.
Award to a single contractor for a defined period can lead to streamlined service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector, a segment that supports various government functions. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized training solutions. The FAA's need for ongoing, high-quality training for its air traffic personnel represents a significant and consistent demand within this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found in other large federal agencies requiring extensive workforce development programs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor, THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC, is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business participation was encouraged or mandated through subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officer and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified training outcomes. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal contract databases, though detailed performance metrics may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Training Programs
Air Traffic Control Modernization Efforts
Professional Development Services for Government

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Performance Metrics Not Publicly Available
Potential for Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $114.5 million to THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC. TRAINING SUPPORT FOR AIR TRAFFIC FIELD FACILITIES (TSAT)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $114.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-22. End: 2008-09-01.

What is the track record of THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC with federal contracts, particularly in training services?

THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC has a history of federal contracting. While this specific award of $114.5 million for Air Traffic Field Facilities Training (TSAT) is substantial, a comprehensive review of their past performance would involve examining other contracts, their values, durations, and any reported performance issues or commendations. Analyzing their portfolio for similar training contracts, especially for agencies like the FAA or Department of Defense, would provide further insight into their capabilities and reliability in delivering complex training solutions. Federal procurement data can reveal patterns of successful contract completions, sole-source awards, or any instances of contract disputes or terminations, all of which contribute to assessing their overall track record.

How does the $114.5 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar air traffic control training?

The $114.5 million awarded to THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC for TSAT represents a significant investment. To benchmark this against historical spending, one would need to analyze prior FAA contracts for air traffic control training, looking at both the total dollar amounts and the scope of services provided over comparable periods. Factors such as inflation, changes in training technology, and evolving operational requirements can influence year-over-year spending. If previous training contracts were for similar durations and covered comparable numbers of personnel or training modules, this figure can be assessed for its relative scale. A substantial increase or decrease compared to historical averages might warrant further investigation into the underlying reasons, such as program expansion, efficiency gains, or shifts in procurement strategy.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price training contract?

The primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price (FFP) training contract, despite its cost-control benefits, revolve around ensuring the quality and adequacy of the training delivered. If the Statement of Work (SOW) is not meticulously defined, the contractor might deliver training that meets the literal requirements but fails to adequately prepare air traffic personnel for real-world scenarios, leading to performance gaps. There's also a risk that the contractor, in an effort to maximize profit under an FFP structure, could cut corners on training materials, instructor qualifications, or facility resources, thereby compromising the educational value. Furthermore, if unforeseen circumstances arise that significantly increase the contractor's costs (e.g., major changes in regulatory requirements impacting training content), they may seek contract modifications, potentially leading to cost overruns or disputes, although FFP aims to place this risk on the contractor.

How effective is the current training program in supporting the FAA's mission and safety goals?

Assessing the effectiveness of the current training program requires data beyond the contract award details. Key performance indicators (KPIs) would likely include metrics such as trainee pass rates, post-training performance evaluations of controllers, reduction in operational errors or incidents attributed to training deficiencies, and feedback from trainees and supervisors. The FAA's own internal quality assurance reviews and audits of the training provided by THE WASHINGTON CONSULTING GROUP INC would be crucial. Comparing these metrics to pre-contract benchmarks or industry best practices would offer a clearer picture. Without access to these specific performance and outcome data, it's challenging to definitively state the program's effectiveness, though the competitive award and FFP structure suggest an intent to achieve reliable outcomes.

What has been the historical spending trend for air traffic control training by the FAA?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for air traffic control training by the FAA would involve reviewing procurement data over several fiscal years. This would reveal whether the $114.5 million award represents a typical, increased, or decreased level of investment compared to previous periods. Trends might be influenced by factors such as the pace of technological upgrades in air traffic management, the hiring and retirement cycles of controllers, and the overall budget allocated to the FAA. For instance, periods of significant modernization or expansion of the air traffic system might correlate with higher training expenditures. Conversely, budget constraints or a stable operational environment could lead to more modest spending. Understanding these trends provides context for the current contract's scale and the FAA's ongoing commitment to workforce development in this critical area.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Business Schools and Computer and Management Training › Professional and Management Development Training

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4915 AUBURN AVE STE 301, BETHESDA, MD, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,421,966,100

Exercised Options: $114,529,192

Current Obligation: $114,529,192

Timeline