OPM awards $20.4M training contract to Booz Allen Hamilton, highlighting professional development needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,370,369 ($20.4M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Start Date: 2011-05-17

End Date: 2012-05-04

Contract Duration: 353 days

Daily Burn Rate: $57.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRAINING

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19178, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Office of Personnel Management obligated $20.4 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: TRAINING Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized professional development services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. Contract type (Firm Fixed Price) shifts risk to the contractor. 4. Contract duration of 353 days is typical for this type of service. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430 points to a focus on professional and management development. 6. Geographic location of Pennsylvania may indicate a specific regional training focus or administrative hub.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $20.4 million for professional and management development training is within a reasonable range for services of this nature. Benchmarking against similar federal training contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure indicates that the government has secured a defined cost for the services, with the contractor bearing the risk of cost overruns. This contract type generally promotes cost control and predictability.

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. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service quality. The presence of 5 bids suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this training requirement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for cost savings through competitive bidding and encourages a wider pool of qualified contractors to offer their best pricing.

Public Impact

Federal employees, particularly those in management and professional roles, are the primary beneficiaries of this training. The services delivered are professional and management development training, aimed at enhancing skills and capabilities. The contract's geographic indicator of Pennsylvania suggests a potential focus on training delivery or administration within that state. Workforce implications include upskilling and professional development for federal employees, potentially leading to improved government efficiency and effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if training materials or methodologies are proprietary.
Ensuring training content remains relevant and up-to-date with evolving professional standards.
Measuring the tangible impact and ROI of the training on employee performance and agency outcomes.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract structure limits cost uncertainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Booz Allen Hamilton is a well-established contractor with significant experience in government services.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector within the federal government is a significant market. This contract falls under the broader professional services category, which includes consulting, training, and administrative support. Spending in this area is driven by the need for continuous workforce development, compliance training, and leadership enhancement across various federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale training contracts awarded to professional services firms.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss' being false. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The award to a large, established firm like Booz Allen Hamilton suggests that the primary focus was on capability and capacity rather than small business participation in the prime contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified training outcomes. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Contract Value
Competition Level
Contract Type
Contractor Performance History

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Office of Personnel Management awarded $20.4 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. TRAINING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON 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 $20.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-05-17. End: 2012-05-04.

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with federal training contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton has a substantial track record of performing federal contracts, including those related to training and professional development. As a large, established government contractor, they possess extensive experience in delivering a wide range of services to various agencies. Their past performance often includes large-scale training initiatives, strategic planning support, and management consulting. While specific details on all past training contracts require deeper database analysis, their general profile indicates a capacity to handle complex training requirements. Evaluating specific past performance metrics, such as on-time delivery, quality of training, and client satisfaction from previous, similar contracts, would provide a more granular understanding of their capabilities and reliability in this domain.

How does the $20.4 million contract value compare to similar federal training contracts?

The $20.4 million contract value for professional and management development training is a significant award, placing it in the mid-to-large tier for federal training contracts. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against contracts with similar scope, duration, and target audience (e.g., management training for federal employees). Contracts for highly specialized technical training or large-scale, agency-wide professional development programs can range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract suggests a defined scope, which aids in value assessment. Without direct comparisons of per-participant costs or training hours, a precise value-for-money judgment is difficult, but the amount is consistent with substantial federal training investments.

What are the primary risks associated with this training contract?

Key risks for this training contract include the potential for the training content to become outdated if not regularly updated to reflect current best practices and agency needs. Another risk is the difficulty in measuring the direct return on investment (ROI) and the tangible impact of the training on employee performance and agency outcomes. Contractor performance risk, though mitigated by the firm fixed-price structure, still exists if Booz Allen Hamilton fails to deliver the agreed-upon quality or scope. Furthermore, there's a risk of low employee engagement or participation if the training is not perceived as relevant or valuable by the target audience. Ensuring effective knowledge transfer and application post-training is also a common challenge.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' approach for this type of contract?

The 'full and open competition' approach is generally considered highly effective for securing value and quality in federal training contracts. It allows a broad range of qualified vendors, including large established firms like Booz Allen Hamilton and potentially smaller, specialized providers, to compete. This competition drives down prices and encourages innovation in training methodologies and content. The fact that 5 bids were received indicates sufficient market interest. This method ensures that the government is likely to receive competitive pricing and a high-quality service offering, as vendors strive to differentiate themselves based on merit, cost, and proposed solutions. It maximizes the opportunity for taxpayers to benefit from cost-effective training solutions.

What are the historical spending patterns for professional and management development training by OPM?

Historical spending patterns for professional and management development training by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would likely show consistent investment in workforce development. OPM, as the central human resources agency for the federal government, prioritizes training to enhance the skills and capabilities of federal employees. Annual spending can fluctuate based on agency priorities, budget allocations, and specific initiatives. Analyzing OPM's budget justifications and historical contract awards for NAICS code 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training) and related codes would reveal trends in spending levels, types of training procured, and key contractors. This contract represents a specific instance within that broader spending context, reflecting an ongoing commitment to federal employee development.

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: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (UEI: 964725688)

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DRIVE, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,370,378

Exercised Options: $20,370,378

Current Obligation: $20,370,369

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: OPM020700001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline