State Department Awards $44.6M for Overseas Training to Undisclosed Domestic Firms

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $44,561,657 ($44.6M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2016-03-01

End Date: 2016-12-30

Contract Duration: 304 days

Daily Burn Rate: $146.6K/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 $44.6 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant contract value for professional development training. 2. Awardee information is undisclosed, raising transparency concerns. 3. Lack of competition suggests potential for higher costs. 4. Training services are critical for diplomatic and operational effectiveness.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with undisclosed awardees and a lack of competition, makes a direct pricing assessment difficult. Benchmarking against similar training contracts is challenging without more transparency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to less favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competitive bidding may result in taxpayers paying more than necessary for these training services.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying due to the absence of competition. Lack of transparency regarding awardees hinders public scrutiny. Essential training services are being procured without a competitive process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Undisclosed awardees
Not competed
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type

Positive Signals

Essential service for overseas operations

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional and management development training sector, often procured by government agencies to enhance employee skills. Spending benchmarks for this category can vary widely based on scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small businesses were not specifically targeted or awarded this contract, as the 'sb' field is false and awardee information is undisclosed.

Oversight & Accountability

The lack of disclosed awardees and the sole-source nature of this contract raise concerns about oversight and accountability. Further investigation into the justification for not competing the award is warranted.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardees
Potential for cost overruns
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $44.6 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 $44.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-03-01. End: 2016-12-30.

What is the justification for awarding this significant training contract on a sole-source basis without competition?

The justification for a sole-source award typically involves unique capabilities, urgent needs, or a lack of qualified sources. Without further documentation from the Department of State, it's impossible to determine the specific rationale. However, the absence of competition inherently limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.

How can the value for money be assessed given the undisclosed awardees and lack of competitive bidding?

Assessing value for money is challenging without knowing the awardee and their pricing structure relative to competitors. The cost-plus-fixed-fee nature, combined with a non-competed award, suggests a higher risk of inflated costs. Benchmarking against similar, competed contracts would be necessary for a more accurate assessment.

What is the potential impact on the effectiveness of overseas operations if training is procured without competitive scrutiny?

While the training itself is intended to improve effectiveness, procuring it without competition could indirectly impact operations if costs are significantly higher than necessary, diverting funds from other critical areas. Furthermore, a lack of competitive input might mean the training curriculum isn't as optimized or innovative as it could be.

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: 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: $50,421,728

Exercised Options: $50,421,728

Current Obligation: $44,561,657

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline