State Department awards $72.1M for overseas training, raising concerns about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $72,103,447 ($72.1M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2017-09-18

Contract Duration: 991 days

Daily Burn Rate: $72.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $72.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant contract value ($72.1M) for professional development training. 2. Lack of disclosed awardees suggests limited competition. 3. Cost-plus fixed fee structure may incentivize higher spending. 4. No small business participation noted.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus fixed fee structure, combined with undisclosed awardees, makes a direct pricing assessment difficult. Without competitive benchmarks, it's hard to determine if $72.1M represents fair value for the training provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded to 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)'. This lack of transparency and competition significantly hinders price discovery and potentially leads to inflated costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition and unclear awardee details suggest potential for overspending, impacting taxpayer funds negatively.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying due to lack of competitive bidding. Limited transparency on who received the funds and for what specific services. Potential for inefficient use of funds without clear performance metrics tied to competition.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
Cost-plus contract type
No small business participation

Positive Signals

Contract awarded by a major agency (Department of State)
Focus on professional development, potentially enhancing workforce skills

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under professional and management development training, a sector that can vary widely in cost depending on scope and provider. Benchmarks are difficult without knowing the specific training modules and target audience.

Small Business Impact

The contract explicitly states 'sb': false, indicating no small business participation. This misses an opportunity to support small businesses and could suggest the contract was not structured to encourage their involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status and undisclosed awardees raise significant oversight questions. The Department of State needs to provide justification for the lack of competition and details on the selected awardees to ensure accountability.

Related Government Programs

Professional and Management Development Training
Department of State Contracting
Department of State Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
Cost-plus contract type
Potential for overpayment
No small business inclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $72.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $72.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2017-09-18.

What specific training was provided under this contract, and how was its effectiveness measured?

The data indicates 'Professional and Management Development Training' but lacks specifics on the curriculum or delivery methods. Without defined metrics and independent evaluation, it's impossible to assess the training's actual impact or return on investment for the $72.1M spent. Further documentation is needed to understand the scope and outcomes.

What justification does the Department of State have for not competing this contract?

The contract was 'NOT COMPETED', and awardees are 'UNDISCLOSED'. Typically, non-competitive awards require strong justification, such as a sole-source provider with unique capabilities or an emergency situation. The agency must provide documentation explaining why competition was not feasible or in the government's best interest for this significant training contract.

How does the $72.1M cost compare to similar overseas training contracts awarded competitively?

A direct comparison is challenging due to the non-competitive nature and undisclosed awardees. If similar, competitively awarded contracts for comparable training exist, their pricing would serve as a benchmark. The lack of transparency here prevents such an analysis, making it difficult to ascertain if this contract represents a fair market price.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Business Schools and Computer and Management Training › Professional and Management Development Training

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $74,784,378

Exercised Options: $74,784,378

Current Obligation: $72,103,447

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline