Labor Department's $150M contract for Clearfield Job Corps Center operations awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $150,025,212 ($150.0M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2005-04-01

End Date: 2010-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION OF CLEARFIELD JC CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: CLEARFIELD, DAVIS County, UTAH, 84016

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $150.0 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: OPERATION OF CLEARFIELD JC CENTER Key points: 1. Contract value of $150 million over five years suggests significant investment in workforce development. 2. The definitive contract type indicates a long-term commitment to service provision. 3. The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' pricing structure aims to align contractor performance with government objectives. 4. The contract's duration of 1825 days (5 years) provides stability for the service provider and beneficiaries. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611519 points to specialized technical and trade education services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $150 million over five years averages $30 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar Job Corps center operations requires detailed cost breakdowns, which are not provided. The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, but also incentivizes efficiency. Without specific performance metrics and cost data, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting multiple bidders likely vied for this opportunity. This competitive process is generally expected to yield fair market pricing and encourage the selection of the most capable contractor. The presence of competition is a positive indicator for price discovery and ensuring taxpayer funds are used effectively.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition helps ensure that the government receives competitive pricing, which is beneficial for taxpayers. It reduces the risk of inflated costs that can occur with less competitive or sole-source procurements.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals seeking vocational training and employment services at the Clearfield Job Corps Center. The contract delivers essential services related to operating a Job Corps center, including training, education, and support. The geographic impact is focused on Utah, specifically serving the Clearfield area and its surrounding communities. Workforce implications include the employment of staff to run the center and the development of a skilled workforce through the training programs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' contracts if performance incentives are not well-defined or monitored.
The long duration of the contract could lead to complacency if performance is not continuously evaluated.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant period may limit flexibility in adapting to changing training needs or technologies.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure, if managed effectively, can drive contractor performance and efficiency.
The significant investment signals a commitment to workforce development in the region.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader education and training services sector, specifically focusing on vocational and technical education. The Job Corps program is a significant federal initiative aimed at providing disadvantaged youth with the skills and education needed to secure quality jobs. The market for operating such centers involves specialized educational providers with experience in workforce development and student support services. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the operational costs of other Job Corps centers or similar large-scale training programs.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). While the primary awardee is Management & Training Corporation, there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans with small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether MTC actively seeks small business subcontractors for specialized services or supplies.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Accountability measures are embedded within the 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure, which links contractor payment to performance outcomes. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed operational performance data may not always be publicly accessible. The Inspector General for the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction over potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Labor Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Other Federal Job Training Programs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control.
Long contract duration may reduce flexibility and increase risk of complacency.
Performance metrics and outcomes need rigorous tracking for effective oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $150.0 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. OPERATION OF CLEARFIELD JC CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $150.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-04-01. End: 2010-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Clearfield Job Corps Center operations?

The provided data reflects a single definitive contract awarded in 2005 for $150,025,212, with a duration of 1825 days (5 years), ending in March 2010. This suggests that prior to this award, operations may have been under different contracts or managed differently. To understand the full historical spending pattern, one would need to research contracts preceding this period and potentially subsequent contracts if operations continued under new awards. Analyzing the annual spending within this specific $150 million contract would also provide insight into the financial trajectory during its term, though the 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure means actual spending could fluctuate based on performance and costs incurred.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to other Job Corps centers?

This contract, valued at approximately $150 million over five years, averages about $30 million per year. To compare this to other Job Corps centers, we would need data on the annual operating costs of similar centers nationwide. Factors influencing these costs include the center's size (number of students served), the scope of training programs offered, geographic location (affecting labor and facility costs), and the specific contract type and performance incentives. Without a benchmark dataset of comparable center operating costs, it is difficult to definitively state whether $30 million annually is high, low, or average. Such comparisons are crucial for assessing value for money.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) tied to the 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure?

The 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' (CPIF) contract structure implies that the contractor, Management & Training Corporation, is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, with the fee being adjusted based on performance against pre-defined targets. While the specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, they typically relate to program outcomes such as student graduation rates, job placement rates, starting wages of placed graduates, and potentially cost control measures. The 'incentive' portion means MTC could earn more than the target fee if they exceed performance goals, or earn less if they fall short. Effective oversight requires clear, measurable, and relevant KPIs that align with the Department of Labor's objectives for the Job Corps program.

What is the track record of Management & Training Corporation in operating federal contracts, particularly Job Corps centers?

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is a well-established private operator of Job Corps centers and other correctional and detention facilities. They have a long history of managing government contracts. Information regarding their specific track record on this particular Clearfield JC Center contract would require reviewing performance evaluations, any contract modifications, and potential disputes or awards issued during its 2005-2010 term. Generally, MTC's performance across its portfolio of contracts is subject to government oversight and reporting. Assessing their overall track record involves looking at their success in meeting performance metrics, managing costs, and adhering to regulatory requirements across all contracts they manage.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term definitive contract for operating a Job Corps center?

Long-term definitive contracts, like this five-year award, carry several potential risks. One risk is contractor complacency; if performance is not rigorously monitored, the contractor might reduce efforts over time. Another risk is inflexibility; the contract terms might become outdated if training needs or federal priorities shift significantly during the contract period, making it difficult to adapt. There's also the risk of vendor lock-in, where switching providers becomes costly or disruptive. Furthermore, the 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' structure, while incentivizing, can lead to cost increases if not managed tightly, potentially exceeding initial budget expectations if performance targets are aggressively pursued without strong cost controls.

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

Solicitation ID: JC-RIV-3-04

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 NORTH MARKETPLACE DR, CENTERVILLE, UT, 84014

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $150,041,754

Exercised Options: $150,041,754

Current Obligation: $150,025,212

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline