DoD awards C2 Technologies $4.4M for professional development training, with delivery expected over two years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,421,203 ($4.4M)

Contractor: C2 Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-05-09

End Date: 2026-05-09

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AWARD

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $4.4 million to C2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: AWARD Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires careful monitoring of indirect costs to ensure value. 2. With only two bidders, the level of competition may have limited price negotiation leverage. 3. The fixed-fee component provides some cost certainty, but the variable cost elements warrant scrutiny. 4. This award falls within the professional and management development training sector, a common area for government procurement. 5. The relatively short two-year duration suggests a focused scope of work or potential for future re-competition.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The award amount of $4.42 million for two years of professional development training appears moderate for a federal contract of this nature. Benchmarking against similar contracts for management and professional development services is crucial to assess if the pricing is competitive. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type introduces some risk, as the government pays for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee, necessitating robust oversight to control indirect costs and ensure the fixed fee remains reasonable for the effort.

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 offers. However, with only two bidders identified, the actual level of competition may have been limited. A low number of bidders can sometimes indicate a specialized market, high barriers to entry, or potentially less aggressive pricing due to reduced competitive pressure.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers, the limited number of bidders suggests that the government may not have achieved the most competitive pricing possible. Further analysis of the proposals received would be needed to confirm if the pricing reflects market value.

Public Impact

Military personnel and civilian employees within the Department of the Navy are the primary beneficiaries of this training. The training aims to enhance professional and management skills, potentially improving operational efficiency and leadership. The contract is geographically focused on Maryland (MD), suggesting the training will be delivered or managed from this state. The services delivered will likely involve curriculum development, instruction, and assessment in areas of professional and management development.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the CPFF contract type if indirect costs are not tightly managed.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher-than-optimal price.
Scope creep could increase costs if not carefully controlled within the fixed-fee parameters.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing potential bidder pool.
Fixed fee component provides some cost predictability for the government.
Clear contract duration (2 years) allows for defined planning and potential future re-evaluation.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant area of government procurement, supporting workforce development across various agencies. This contract fits within the broader professional services market, which includes consulting, training, and human resources support. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar training services can vary widely based on scope, duration, and subject matter, but federal spending in this category is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, C2 Technologies, Inc., will determine any subcontracting opportunities based on their own business needs and capabilities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the Department of the Navy contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and approving payments. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates diligent review of incurred costs and the justification for the fixed fee. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, but detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Professional and Management Development Training
Defense Agency Training Contracts
Federal Workforce Development Programs
Naval Education and Training Command

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Cost-Plus Contract Type Risk
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $4.4 million to C2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. AWARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is C2 TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $4.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-05-09. End: 2026-05-09.

What is C2 Technologies, Inc.'s track record with federal training contracts?

A review of C2 Technologies, Inc.'s federal contract history would be necessary to assess their performance on similar training and development contracts. Key indicators would include past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the types and scale of previous government training awards. Understanding their experience with the Department of Defense or other agencies delivering professional and management development services would provide context for their ability to execute this current contract successfully. Without specific historical data on their performance, it is difficult to definitively assess their track record.

How does the $4.42 million award compare to similar professional development training contracts?

To benchmark the value, we would need to compare this $4.42 million award against similar professional development and management training contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies over the past few years. Factors such as the number of personnel trained, the duration of the training, the complexity of the curriculum, and the specific skills being developed would be critical for a fair comparison. Contracts with similar scope and duration could range from a few hundred thousand to several million dollars, depending on these variables. The current award appears moderate, but a detailed comparison with publicly available contract data is needed for a definitive assessment of value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for training services?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract for training services lies in cost control. While the fixed fee provides a predictable profit margin for the contractor, the government bears the risk of all allowable costs. If the contractor's indirect costs (overhead, administrative expenses, etc.) are higher than anticipated or poorly managed, the total cost to the government can escalate beyond initial projections. Effective oversight is crucial to scrutinize these indirect costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable to the contract, and prevent potential cost overruns. The contractor also has an incentive to control costs to maximize their profit within the fixed fee, but this must be balanced against the government's need for quality service delivery.

How effective is full and open competition when only two bids are received?

Full and open competition is designed to solicit offers from the widest possible range of responsible sources, theoretically leading to the best value for the government. However, when only two bids are received, the effectiveness of this competition is diminished. It suggests that either the market for this specific service is small, the barriers to entry are high, or potential bidders were deterred for other reasons. While two bidders are better than one, it reduces the competitive pressure on pricing and innovation compared to a scenario with multiple, robust offers. The government must still conduct a thorough evaluation to ensure the selected offer represents good value, but the limited pool restricts the potential for aggressive price negotiation.

What is the historical spending trend for professional and management development training within the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending data for professional and management development training within the Department of the Navy would reveal trends in procurement volume, average award values, and the types of services most frequently contracted. This information helps contextualize the current $4.42 million award. For instance, if historical spending in this category has been consistently high, this award might represent routine procurement. Conversely, if spending has been declining, this award could signify a renewed focus or a shift in training strategy. Understanding these patterns can inform future budget planning and identify potential areas for cost savings or increased investment.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0042123R0057

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7601 LEWINSVILLE RD STE 205, MC LEAN, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,031,189

Exercised Options: $5,316,272

Current Obligation: $4,421,203

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS02Q16DCR0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline