DoD's $1.5B contract for training services awarded to Inveris Training Solutions, Inc. over a decade

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,055,652 ($15.1M)

Contractor: Inveris Training Solutions, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-04-13

End Date: 2015-04-28

Contract Duration: 3,667 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: SUWANEE, FORSYTH County, GEORGIA, 30024, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.1 million to INVERIS TRAINING SOLUTIONS, INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $1.5 billion over its lifespan indicates significant investment in training capabilities. 2. The sole-source award raises questions about potential missed opportunities for competitive pricing. 3. Long contract duration of over 10 years suggests a sustained need for these specific training services. 4. The contract's focus on training services positions it within a critical support function for military readiness. 5. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $1.5 billion over approximately 10 years is substantial. Without specific performance metrics or comparable sole-source contracts for similar training services, it is difficult to definitively benchmark value for money. The lack of competition inherently limits the ability to assess if the pricing reflects market rates or if a more competitive process could have yielded better terms for the government. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty but does not guarantee optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning the Department of Defense did not conduct a competitive bidding process. This typically occurs when only one vendor is capable of meeting the requirement, or in specific circumstances where competition is deemed not practicable. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or negotiation against alternatives, potentially leading to higher costs than a competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can mean taxpayers may not be getting the best possible price, as the government did not leverage competition to drive down costs. This also limits transparency in the pricing structure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel who receive specialized training, enhancing their operational readiness and skills. The services delivered are crucial for maintaining proficiency in complex systems and operational procedures. The contract's geographic impact is likely widespread, supporting various naval installations and training facilities. Workforce implications include the employment of instructors, curriculum developers, and support staff by Inveris Training Solutions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Absence of small business participation could limit broader economic benefits.
Long contract duration may reduce flexibility to adapt to evolving training needs or technologies.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long-term award suggests a stable and reliable training solution for a critical need.
Contractor has a long tenure, indicating potential for deep expertise in the required training.

Sector Analysis

The defense training sector is a significant market within the broader professional services industry. This contract falls under the category of specialized training and simulation services, often requiring unique expertise and proprietary technologies. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the training provided, but the overall defense training market is valued in the billions annually, with a substantial portion dedicated to simulation and specialized skill development.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a primary consideration, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) field is false and the 'sb' (small business) field is also false. This suggests that the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor was Inveris Training Solutions identified as a small business. This raises questions about potential subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the performance of this large contract and the overall impact on the small business defense contracting ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified services within agreed-upon costs. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications, performance reports, and payment data are usually available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Training and Simulation Contracts
Naval Education and Training Command Programs
Military Personnel Development Services
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing.
Long contract duration may limit adaptability to future needs.
Lack of explicit small business participation noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.1 million to INVERIS TRAINING SOLUTIONS, INC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INVERIS TRAINING SOLUTIONS, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-04-13. End: 2015-04-28.

What specific training services does this contract cover, and what is the justification for the sole-source award?

The contract, awarded to Inveris Training Solutions, Inc., with a total value of $1,505,565,200, covers a broad range of training services for the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333199, 'All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing,' and the Product Service Code (PSC) are not explicitly detailed in the provided data, but the contract description points towards 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing' and training. The justification for the sole-source award (contract type 'NOT COMPETED') is not detailed in the provided data snippet. Typically, sole-source justifications are based on factors such as the uniqueness of the technology or services, the contractor's specialized capabilities, or the lack of adequate competition. Without further documentation, it's presumed that Inveris possessed unique qualifications or that competition was deemed impracticable at the time of award.

How does the $1.5 billion contract value compare to other large defense training contracts?

The $1.5 billion total award value for Inveris Training Solutions, Inc. over its lifespan (approximately 2005-2015) places it among significant investments in defense training. While specific comparable contracts are not provided, the defense sector consistently awards multi-billion dollar contracts for training, simulation, and readiness support. For instance, major simulation and training systems contracts, or large-scale, long-term training service agreements for specific platforms or branches, can easily reach or exceed this figure. The value is substantial, reflecting a long-term commitment to a critical capability, but its relative 'expenditure' depends heavily on the scope and criticality of the training provided compared to other major defense training initiatives.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude and duration?

A sole-source award of $1.5 billion over more than 10 years carries several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition means the government may not have achieved the most favorable pricing, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. Secondly, without competitive pressure, there's a risk of complacency from the contractor regarding innovation or service improvement. Thirdly, the long duration could lock the government into a specific solution that may become outdated or less effective as technology and training methodologies evolve. Finally, the absence of a competitive process can raise concerns about transparency and fairness in government procurement, potentially impacting public trust and the broader defense industrial base.

What is the historical spending pattern for this type of training service within the Department of the Navy?

The provided data snippet focuses on a single contract awarded in 2005 and ending in 2015. To assess historical spending patterns for this type of training service within the Department of the Navy, one would need to analyze procurement data over a longer period, looking for similar contracts awarded to Inveris Training Solutions or other contractors for comparable services. This would involve identifying relevant NAICS codes and PSCs related to defense training and simulation. Without access to a broader dataset, it's impossible to determine trends, fluctuations, or the overall budget allocation for such services. However, the significant value of this single contract suggests that training is a consistent and substantial area of expenditure for the Navy.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place for this contract?

Given the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type and its substantial value, it is highly probable that robust performance metrics and oversight mechanisms were in place. FFP contracts require the contractor to deliver specific goods or services at a fixed price, with the government typically defining detailed performance standards in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). Oversight would likely involve government representatives monitoring contractor performance against these standards, conducting regular reviews, and managing contract modifications. Mechanisms could include acceptance testing, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and periodic performance evaluations. The long duration also suggests a structured approach to contract management and oversight to ensure continued alignment with evolving military requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Meggitt Aircraft Braking Systems Kentucky Corporation (UEI: 216242784)

Address: 7340 MCGINNIS FERRY RD, SUWANEE, GA, 30024

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline