OPM awards $24.7M contract for professional development training to Federal Management Partners, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,733,368 ($24.7M)

Contractor: Federal Management Partners, LLC

Awarding Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Start Date: 2012-03-06

End Date: 2013-09-15

Contract Duration: 558 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20415, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Office of Personnel Management obligated $24.7 million to FEDERAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating clear cost expectations. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 558 days (approx. 1.5 years) is moderate. 4. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Federal Management Partners, LLC. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430 points to professional and management development training services. 6. The contract was awarded by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 7. The contract was awarded in the District of Columbia.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the training services provided and the number of individuals trained. The awarded amount of $24.7 million over approximately 1.5 years suggests a significant investment in professional development. However, without comparable contract data for similar training programs or a clear understanding of the scope and deliverables, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents excellent value for money. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the training would require further performance metrics.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which typically means that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bidders, as indicated by the 'no' field, suggests a degree of competition. However, the fact that only one award was made means that while multiple entities could bid, the final selection was made from a limited pool. The level of competition can influence price discovery, and with three bidders, there was likely some pressure to offer competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to vie for the contract, potentially leading to more favorable pricing and better service offerings compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Public Impact

Federal employees across various agencies are the primary beneficiaries, receiving enhanced professional and management development. The services delivered include training programs aimed at improving skills and competencies within the federal workforce. The geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the contract was awarded and likely where many of the training activities or participants are based. Workforce implications include the potential for upskilling and career advancement for federal employees, contributing to a more effective and efficient government.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true impact and effectiveness of the training.
The specific scope of 'professional and management development training' is broad and could encompass a wide range of services, making value assessment challenging.
Without data on the number of individuals trained or the specific outcomes achieved, it's hard to gauge the return on investment for the $24.7 million expenditure.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating an effort to ensure a fair and broad selection process.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, minimizing the risk of cost overruns.
The contract addresses a critical need for professional development within the federal workforce, supporting government efficiency and effectiveness.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector is a significant part of the broader professional services industry. Federal agencies frequently contract for such services to enhance the skills and capabilities of their employees. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale training contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar purposes. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous private sector firms offering specialized training solutions.

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 or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a small business set-aside. Federal Management Partners, LLC, as the prime contractor, would be responsible for its own workforce and any subcontractors it chooses to engage, irrespective of size, unless specific subcontracting goals were imposed outside of a set-aside designation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the awarding agency. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on whether OPM's Inspector General has oversight authority over this specific type of procurement and service delivery.

Related Government Programs

Federal Employee Training Programs
Management Consulting Services
Professional Development Grants
Government Workforce Development Initiatives

Risk Flags

Potential for cost inefficiency if scope is not tightly managed under FFP.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes outcome assessment difficult.
Limited competition (3 bidders) could impact price optimization.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Office of Personnel Management awarded $24.7 million to FEDERAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC. IGF::CL::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FEDERAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Office of Personnel Management (Office of Personnel Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-03-06. End: 2013-09-15.

What specific types of professional and management development training were included in this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 611430, which covers 'Professional and Management Development Training.' This generally includes courses, seminars, and workshops designed to enhance the skills and knowledge of employees in management, technical, and professional fields. Examples could range from leadership and supervisory training to project management, communication skills, and specialized technical skill development relevant to federal roles. However, without access to the contract's statement of work or detailed descriptions, the precise curriculum and delivery methods remain unspecified. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would have procured these services to address identified training needs within the federal workforce.

How does the $24.7 million contract value compare to typical federal spending on similar training services?

Comparing the $24.7 million contract value requires context regarding the scope, duration, and number of individuals served. OPM's contract for professional and management development training is substantial, suggesting a broad reach or intensive program. To benchmark effectively, one would need to analyze other large federal training contracts awarded by agencies like GSA, DoD, or other civilian departments over similar periods. Factors such as the type of training (e.g., leadership vs. technical), delivery method (in-person vs. online), and the target audience's seniority level significantly influence cost. Without specific comparable data points, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represents high or low spending relative to the market.

What is the track record of Federal Management Partners, LLC in delivering government training contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of Federal Management Partners, LLC in delivering government training contracts is not detailed in the provided data snippet. While the data confirms they were awarded this $24.7 million contract by OPM, it does not offer insights into their past performance, client satisfaction, or success rates on previous federal engagements. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract histories, and potentially client testimonials or agency reports related to their prior work. Understanding their experience with similar training programs and their ability to meet government requirements is crucial for evaluating future performance.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for training services?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty to the government, as the price is set regardless of the contractor's actual costs. For training services, the primary risk for the contractor is underestimating the effort or resources required, potentially leading to reduced profit margins or even a loss if costs exceed the fixed price. For the government, the risk lies in potentially paying a premium if the contractor's actual costs are significantly lower than anticipated. Additionally, if the scope of training needs to change substantially, modifications to an FFP contract can be complex and may lead to price adjustments. Ensuring a well-defined scope of work is critical to mitigate these risks.

How many federal employees were intended to be trained under this $24.7 million contract?

The provided data does not specify the number of federal employees intended to be trained under this $24.7 million contract. The contract's scope, defined by NAICS code 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training), suggests a broad application. The total number of participants would be a critical factor in determining the per-person cost and overall value. Agencies typically estimate participant numbers based on projected needs, workforce demographics, and strategic development goals. Without this information, it is challenging to assess the efficiency of the training delivery on a per-participant basis.

What is the historical spending pattern for professional and management development training by OPM?

The provided data snippet focuses on a single contract awarded in 2012-2013. To understand OPM's historical spending patterns for professional and management development training, a broader analysis of contract awards over multiple fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve examining databases like FPDS to identify trends in contract values, types of services procured, primary contractors, and competition levels. Such an analysis could reveal whether OPM's spending in this area has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether there have been shifts in procurement strategies or contractor choices over time.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1500 N. BEAUREGARD STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22311

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,733,368

Exercised Options: $24,733,368

Current Obligation: $24,733,368

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: OPM020700040

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline