Department of Labor's $26.2M youth training contract awarded to Res-Care, Inc. under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,187,313 ($26.2M)

Contractor: Res-Care, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Labor

Start Date: 2004-09-01

End Date: 2008-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVED EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES TO YOUTH

Place of Performance

Location: TUCSON, PIMA County, ARIZONA, 85719

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Labor obligated $26.2 million to RES-CARE, INC for work described as: PROVED EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES TO YOUTH Key points: 1. Contract focused on providing educational and vocational training to youth. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 1460 days (4 years) indicates a significant, long-term commitment. 4. The 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' NAICS code points to specialized training services. 5. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) pricing structure aims to incentivize performance and cost control. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Res-Care, Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests an attempt to align contractor incentives with government goals, but it can also lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. The total award amount of $26.2 million over four years averages to approximately $6.55 million annually, which needs to be assessed against the scope and quality of services delivered.

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 a bid. This typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service offerings. The fact that only one award was made suggests that Res-Care, Inc. was the most advantageous offer based on the evaluation criteria, but the number of initial bidders is not specified.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to offer their best pricing and innovative solutions, driving down costs and improving service quality.

Public Impact

Youth participants benefit from educational and vocational training, enhancing their future employment prospects. The services delivered aim to equip young individuals with skills for the workforce. The contract's state code (ST) is 'AZ' (Arizona), indicating a geographic focus for service delivery. Potential workforce implications include the development of a more skilled young labor pool in Arizona.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

CPIF contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs if performance targets are not well-defined or if the government's oversight is insufficient.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value for money and effectiveness of the training provided.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, raising questions about the extent of competition beyond the initial solicitation phase.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent initial selection process.
The CPIF structure, if managed effectively, can incentivize the contractor to achieve specific performance goals and manage costs.
The long contract duration (4 years) provides stability for both the contractor and the program participants.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the 'Other Technical and Trade Schools' sector (NAICS 611519), which encompasses institutions primarily offering vocational or technical training. This sector is crucial for workforce development, providing specialized skills not always covered by traditional academic institutions. Federal spending in this area often supports programs aimed at improving employment outcomes for specific demographics, such as youth.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (SB) was not a specific set-aside for this contract (SS: false, SB: false). Therefore, the primary focus was on full and open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award, which could be a missed opportunity for engaging the small business ecosystem in delivering these vital training services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to the terms of the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements, though specific public access to detailed performance data is not guaranteed without further inquiry.

Related Government Programs

Youth Training Programs
Workforce Development Grants
Vocational Education Funding
Job Corps Program

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPIF structure.
Difficulty in objectively measuring training effectiveness without specific outcome data.
Limited information on the number of bidders in the full and open competition.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Labor awarded $26.2 million to RES-CARE, INC. PROVED EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES TO YOUTH

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RES-CARE, 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 $26.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-01. End: 2008-08-31.

What was the specific performance criteria used to evaluate bids under this full and open competition?

The provided data does not specify the exact evaluation criteria used for this contract. However, under full and open competition, agencies typically evaluate bids based on a combination of factors such as technical approach, past performance, management capability, and price. For a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract, criteria would likely also include the proposed incentive structure and the contractor's ability to meet or exceed performance targets related to youth training outcomes, such as completion rates, job placement, and skill acquisition. A detailed review of the original solicitation documents (e.g., Request for Proposal - RFP) would be necessary to ascertain the precise evaluation factors and their weighting.

How does Res-Care, Inc.'s track record in delivering similar youth educational and vocational training services compare to other potential contractors?

Information regarding Res-Care, Inc.'s specific track record and a comparative analysis against other potential contractors is not detailed in the provided data. To assess this, one would need to examine Res-Care's past performance on similar government contracts, looking at metrics such as successful program completion, participant outcomes (e.g., employment rates post-training), client satisfaction, and any history of contract disputes or performance issues. Benchmarking against competitors would involve reviewing their respective performance histories in delivering comparable youth training services. Agencies typically use past performance evaluations as a significant factor in the source selection process.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type for this youth training program?

The primary risk with a CPIF contract is that the final cost can exceed initial estimates if the incentive targets are not carefully structured or if the government's oversight is insufficient. While CPIF aims to motivate the contractor to control costs and achieve performance goals, there's a risk that the contractor might focus excessively on achieving incentives rather than the overall quality or breadth of training. Additionally, defining appropriate and measurable performance metrics for youth training can be complex, potentially leading to disputes over incentive payouts. Effective management and continuous monitoring by the Department of Labor are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for taxpayer money.

Can the effectiveness of the educational and vocational training services provided under this contract be objectively measured?

The effectiveness of the training services can be objectively measured through key performance indicators (KPIs) that should be defined within the contract. These KPIs typically include metrics such as the percentage of youth completing the training programs, the number of participants securing employment within a specified period after completion, the types of jobs secured, average starting salaries, and the acquisition of specific, in-demand vocational skills. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests that such performance metrics were indeed established. However, the provided data lacks these specific outcome measures, making a definitive assessment of effectiveness impossible without further documentation.

How does the annual spending on this contract compare to other federal youth development or vocational training initiatives?

The average annual spending for this contract is approximately $6.55 million ($26.2 million / 4 years). Comparing this to other federal initiatives requires access to data on similar programs managed by agencies like the Department of Labor (e.g., Job Corps), Department of Education, or Department of Health and Human Services. Federal spending on youth development and vocational training varies significantly based on program scope, target population, and duration. Without a direct comparison dataset, it's difficult to definitively state whether this contract's spending level is high, low, or average relative to the broader federal landscape. However, $6.55 million annually represents a substantial investment in a single contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Other Technical and Trade Schools

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: VI-03-02

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Onex Rescare Acquisition, LLC (UEI: 966833399)

Address: 10140 LINN STATION RD, LOUISVILLE, KY, 40223

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $45,243,886

Exercised Options: $29,746,260

Current Obligation: $26,187,313

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline