OPM's $23.9M training contract with SERCO SERVICES INC awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,905,185 ($23.9M)

Contractor: Serco Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Start Date: 2012-09-05

End Date: 2013-09-29

Contract Duration: 389 days

Daily Burn Rate: $61.5K/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 $23.9 million to SERCO SERVICES INC for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the fixed-price nature of the contract. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a robust bidding process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract type generally transferring risk to the contractor. 4. Performance context is limited without specific delivery metrics, but the contract duration suggests ongoing service provision. 5. Sector positioning places this within professional and management development training, a common government need.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $23.9 million over its period of performance suggests a significant investment in professional development. Without specific details on the services delivered or comparable contract data, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government. Benchmarking against similar training contracts would provide a clearer picture of whether the pricing is competitive.

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. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this requirement. This competitive environment is generally expected to drive more favorable pricing and service offerings for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by encouraging multiple vendors to offer their best prices and services.

Public Impact

Federal employees, particularly managers and professionals, are the primary beneficiaries of the training services. The contract delivers professional and management development training, aiming to enhance workforce skills and capabilities. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting federal agencies across various locations. Workforce implications include upskilling and professional growth for federal employees, potentially improving government efficiency and effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the training.
The contract duration of over a year could lead to scope creep if not managed tightly.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant training requirement might limit flexibility in adapting to evolving needs.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract aims to improve federal workforce skills, a positive outcome for government operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector, a segment of the broader government services market. This sector is characterized by a mix of large and small businesses offering a wide range of training solutions. Government spending in this area is consistent, reflecting the ongoing need to train and develop federal employees. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost per training hour or per participant across similar government contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that small businesses may not have been primary participants in this specific award, though they could potentially be involved as subcontractors if the prime contractor chooses to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Office of Personnel Management. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance work statement and delivery requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific details on training content and outcomes may be less publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Employee Training Programs
Management and Leadership Development
Government Workforce Development

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Performance Metrics Unclear
Limited Small Business Participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Office of Personnel Management awarded $23.9 million to SERCO SERVICES INC. IGF::CL::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SERCO SERVICES INC.

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 $23.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-05. End: 2013-09-29.

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

The provided data indicates the contract falls under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430, which covers Professional and Management Development Training. While the specific curriculum is not detailed, this typically includes courses on leadership, project management, communication skills, strategic planning, and other areas designed to enhance the professional capabilities of federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) often focuses on developing skills relevant to public service administration and management.

How does the total contract value of $23.9 million compare to similar training contracts awarded by OPM or other federal agencies?

Comparing the $23.9 million total contract value requires access to a broader dataset of federal training contracts. However, for a contract spanning approximately one year (from September 2012 to September 2013), this represents a substantial investment. Larger agencies often award multi-year training contracts in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. OPM, as a central agency for federal personnel management, would likely procure significant training services. Without specific benchmarks for comparable training types and durations, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending, but it indicates a significant procurement.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate the success of this training contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate the success of this contract. Typically, for training contracts, KPIs might include participant satisfaction surveys, pre- and post-training assessments to measure knowledge gain, observed changes in on-the-job performance, or completion rates. The contracting officer and program managers at OPM would have been responsible for defining and monitoring these metrics as outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS).

What is SERCO SERVICES INC's track record with federal training contracts, particularly with OPM?

Information on SERCO SERVICES INC's specific track record with federal training contracts, especially with OPM, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require searching federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for past awards and performance evaluations related to Serco. Their history with similar contracts, including their performance ratings, past issues, and experience in delivering professional and management development training, would be crucial for understanding their reliability and capability in fulfilling this $23.9 million contract.

Given the firm-fixed-price contract type, what level of financial risk did the contractor assume?

Under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, the contractor, SERCO SERVICES INC, assumes the primary responsibility for all costs incurred in fulfilling the contract requirements. This means that if the actual costs of providing the training services exceed the price agreed upon in the contract, the contractor absorbs the loss. Conversely, if the costs are lower than anticipated, the contractor benefits from the profit margin. This contract type is generally favored by the government when the scope of work is well-defined and the risk of cost escalation is manageable, as it provides cost certainty to the government.

How did the number of bidders (3) influence the pricing and terms offered in this contract?

Having three bidders for this contract suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders generally lead to more competitive pricing, three offers indicate that the market had sufficient interest and that SERCO SERVICES INC likely had to provide a competitive bid to win the award. The specific influence on pricing and terms would depend on the nature of the competition – whether the bids were closely clustered or widely spread. A competitive environment generally pushes contractors to offer better value, potentially including lower prices, improved service levels, or more favorable payment terms, to secure the contract.

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

Parent Company: Serco Group PLC (UEI: 298452707)

Address: 12012 SUNSET HILLS RD 8TH FL, RESTON, VA, 20190

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,905,185

Exercised Options: $23,905,185

Current Obligation: $23,905,185

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: OPM020700008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline