OPM's $34M training contract with SERCO SERVICES INC awarded via full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,132,279 ($34.1M)

Contractor: Serco Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Start Date: 2011-09-23

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 465 days

Daily Burn Rate: $73.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: HC SERVICES.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20415

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Office of Personnel Management obligated $34.1 million to SERCO SERVICES INC for work described as: HC SERVICES. Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in professional development. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The contract duration of over a year indicates a substantial training requirement. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611430 points to a focus on professional and management development training. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or a similar framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed service descriptions and comparable contract data. The firm fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government, as it caps costs. However, the provided data does not allow for a direct comparison of the per-unit cost of training services against market rates or similar government contracts. The total award amount of $34.1 million over approximately 1.5 years suggests a substantial program, but its value-for-money depends heavily on the quality and impact of the training delivered.

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 a bid. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While more than one bidder is positive, a higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria are not provided, which limits a deeper assessment of the competitive dynamics.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally provides a better opportunity for taxpayers to receive competitive pricing compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

Federal employees, particularly those in management and professional roles, are the primary beneficiaries of the training services. The contract supports the development of skills and competencies within the federal workforce. The training likely aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations. The geographic impact is centered in the District of Columbia, where the Office of Personnel Management is headquartered. Workforce implications include enhanced capabilities and potentially improved career progression for federal employees receiving the training.

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 provided data does not include information on contractor past performance or any potential issues.
The specific content and quality of the training are not detailed, posing a risk to the intended outcomes.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair process.
The firm fixed-price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract supports professional development, which is a positive investment in the federal workforce.

Sector Analysis

The professional and management development training sector within the federal government is a significant market. This contract falls under the Professional and Management Development Training services category, often associated with NAICS code 611430. Federal agencies consistently invest in training to enhance employee skills, ensure compliance with regulations, and improve overall operational efficiency. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on agency priorities, budget cycles, and the perceived need for workforce upskilling. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale training contracts awarded to similar service providers or for similar types of development programs across various federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). There is no information regarding subcontracting plans or actual performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract award is not discernible from the data. Future analysis would require details on subcontracting goals and achievements to assess the extent to which small businesses benefited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the contracting agency. As a delivery order, it likely falls under a broader contract vehicle that may have its own oversight mechanisms. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the firm fixed-price contract, including delivery schedules and performance expectations. Transparency is generally facilitated by contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would depend on whether OIG oversight is mandated for OPM contracts or if specific concerns trigger an investigation.

Related Government Programs

Federal Employee Training Programs
Management and Leadership Development
Professional Skills Enhancement
Government Workforce Development

Risk Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics
Limited competition information
Absence of small business subcontracting data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Office of Personnel Management awarded $34.1 million to SERCO SERVICES INC. HC SERVICES.

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 $34.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-23. End: 2012-12-31.

What is the contractor's track record with federal contracts, particularly in training services?

Information regarding SERCO SERVICES INC's specific track record with federal contracts, especially in the realm of professional and management development training, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance evaluations, any contract awards or terminations, and their history of delivering similar services to government agencies. Without this context, it's difficult to gauge their reliability and expertise in fulfilling this $34 million contract effectively. Further research into federal procurement databases and contractor performance systems would be necessary to build a complete picture of their past performance.

How does the per-unit cost of this training compare to similar government or commercial offerings?

The provided data does not contain sufficient detail to perform a per-unit cost comparison for the training services rendered under this contract. Key information such as the number of individuals trained, the duration and type of each training module, and the specific services included in the $34.1 million award are missing. To benchmark the value, one would need to know the cost per training hour, per participant, or per specific course. Without these granular details, it is impossible to determine if the pricing is competitive or represents good value for money when compared to similar government contracts or commercial training rates.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being managed?

Potential risks for this contract include the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered, contractor performance issues, and potential cost overruns if the fixed-price structure is not adequately managed. Given the firm fixed-price nature, the primary risk of cost overrun lies with the contractor. However, risks related to the training's relevance, impact on employee performance, and adherence to schedules remain. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would manage these risks through contract oversight, performance monitoring, and potentially through defined remedies for non-performance. The limited competition (3 bidders) could also pose a risk if it leads to less innovation or less competitive pricing.

What is the historical spending pattern for professional development training at OPM?

The provided data only details a single contract award of $34.1 million to SERCO SERVICES INC for training services. It does not offer any historical context on OPM's spending patterns for professional development training. To understand historical trends, one would need to analyze OPM's contract awards over multiple fiscal years, identifying all contracts related to training, their values, durations, and the services procured. This would reveal whether this $34.1 million award represents an increase, decrease, or consistent level of investment in workforce development compared to previous periods.

What specific types of professional and management development training are being provided?

The NAICS code 611430 indicates 'Professional and Management Development Training,' but the specific types of training are not detailed in the provided data. This could encompass a wide range of programs, such as leadership development, project management, communication skills, technical training, compliance training, or strategic planning workshops. The scope and nature of the training are critical for assessing its value and impact on the federal workforce. Without a more granular description of the training modules and objectives, it is difficult to evaluate the contract's alignment with OPM's strategic goals or its potential return on 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

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: $34,132,279

Exercised Options: $34,132,279

Current Obligation: $34,132,279

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: OPM020700035

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline