Department of Labor's $41.6M contract for Job Corps Center operations awarded to Management & Training Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,597,328 ($41.6M)

Contractor: Management & Training Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2003-05-15

End Date: 2008-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,812 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPERATION OF THE DAYTON JOB CORPS CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, OHIO, 45418

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $41.6 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION for work described as: OPERATION OF THE DAYTON JOB CORPS CENTER Key points: 1. Contract value represents significant investment in workforce development services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 1812 days indicates a long-term commitment to service provision. 4. The contract's cost-plus-incentive structure aims to align contractor performance with government objectives. 5. The specific NAICS code (611519) points to specialized technical and trade school services. 6. Awarding agency is the Employment and Training Administration, focused on labor market needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $41.6 million over approximately five years suggests a substantial investment in operating a Job Corps center. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for operating educational and training facilities is crucial for a precise value-for-money assessment. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparisons to other Job Corps center operating costs, it is difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive or represents excellent value. The cost-plus-incentive fee structure implies that the contractor is incentivized to control costs while meeting performance targets, which can be a positive indicator if managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service quality. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests that multiple entities likely vied for this contract, promoting price discovery and potentially driving down costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for essential services like Job Corps center operations is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages efficiency and cost-effectiveness from contractors.

Public Impact

Benefits youth and disadvantaged individuals by providing vocational training and education. Delivers essential services aimed at improving employability and career prospects. Geographic impact is focused on the service area of the Dayton Job Corps Center in Ohio. Workforce implications include job creation for center staff and training for students.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in cost-plus contracts if not rigorously monitored.
Ensuring consistent quality of training and services across the contract duration.
Measuring the long-term success and impact of the training programs on participant outcomes.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Incentive fee structure can drive performance and efficiency.
Long contract duration provides stability for program operations and participant engagement.

Sector Analysis

The operation of Job Corps centers falls within the broader education and workforce development sector, specifically under vocational training and technical schools. This contract represents a significant portion of federal spending dedicated to providing job training and educational services to at-risk youth. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing the operating costs of other Job Corps centers or similar government-funded training programs to assess efficiency and effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and there is no specific mention of small business set-asides for this contract. This suggests that the primary award was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses by the prime contractor, Management & Training Corporation, and what their impact might be on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to program standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Labor would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Job Corps Program
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Programs
Department of Labor Training Grants
Vocational Education Funding

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns in CPIF contracts.
Ensuring consistent quality of training and services.
Measuring long-term program effectiveness and participant outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $41.6 million to MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION. OPERATION OF THE DAYTON JOB CORPS 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 $41.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-05-15. End: 2008-04-30.

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

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) has a long history of operating correctional facilities and Job Corps centers for government agencies. They are a significant player in the private management of government facilities. Their experience with Job Corps centers specifically would involve managing student recruitment, training programs, academic education, and placement services. A review of past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, or significant findings from government oversight bodies would be necessary to fully assess their track record. Information on student graduation rates, job placement success, and employer satisfaction from their previously managed centers would provide key insights into their effectiveness and reliability as a contractor for the Department of Labor.

How does the cost per student compare to other Job Corps centers?

To compare the cost per student for this Dayton Job Corps Center contract, we would need to know the average number of students served annually and the total operational costs. The total award amount of $41.6 million over approximately five years averages to about $8.32 million per year. If the center serves, for example, 500 students annually, the average annual cost per student would be approximately $16,640. This figure would then need to be benchmarked against the average cost per student across all Job Corps centers nationwide, as well as against the performance metrics (e.g., graduation rates, job placement rates) achieved by those centers. Variations in regional costs, program intensity, and student demographics can influence these comparisons.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a Job Corps center operation contract typically revolve around student outcomes and operational efficiency. These often include metrics such as student enrollment and retention rates, academic achievement (e.g., GED attainment), vocational training completion rates, job placement rates after graduation, and starting wages of placed graduates. Additionally, KPIs might track student satisfaction, employer satisfaction with graduates, and adherence to safety and facility maintenance standards. The 'incentive' portion of the cost-plus-incentive fee structure implies that contractor compensation is directly tied to achieving specific, measurable targets for these KPIs, ensuring alignment with the Department of Labor's goals for the program.

What is the historical spending trend for operating the Dayton Job Corps Center?

The provided data shows a single contract award of $41,597,328 from May 15, 2003, to April 30, 2008. This indicates that for this specific period, Management & Training Corporation was the sole contractor for the Dayton Job Corps Center's operations. To understand the historical spending trend, one would need to examine contract awards preceding and following this period. This would reveal if the center has consistently been operated under similar contract structures, by the same or different contractors, and how the total annual or periodic spending has evolved over time, potentially reflecting changes in program scope, inflation, or student populations served.

What are the risks associated with a cost-plus-incentive fee (CPIF) contract type?

Cost-Plus-Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts, while designed to incentivize performance and cost control, carry inherent risks. For the government, a primary risk is that the final cost may exceed initial estimates, even with incentives, if the target cost is set too high or if unforeseen circumstances drive up expenses significantly. There's also a risk that the contractor might prioritize achieving incentive targets over other critical, non-incentivized aspects of performance. For the contractor, the risk lies in not meeting the performance targets, which could reduce their profit margin. Effective management and oversight are crucial to mitigate these risks, ensuring that the target costs are realistic and the incentive structure appropriately rewards desired outcomes without encouraging undesirable behaviors or excessive spending.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE (V)

Contractor Details

Address: 500 N MARKET PLACE DR, CENTERVILLE, UT, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $95,247,753

Exercised Options: $41,597,328

Current Obligation: $41,597,328

Timeline