HHS awarded $25.8M contract for management and support services over 10 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,808,635 ($25.8M)

Contractor: Mdrc

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2000-09-20

End Date: 2010-03-31

Contract Duration: 3,479 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SERVICES (MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT)

Place of Performance

Location: NEW YORK, NEW YORK County, NEW YORK, 10016, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $25.8 million to MDRC for work described as: SERVICES (MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT) Key points: 1. Contract duration of nearly a decade suggests long-term need for services. 2. Multiple task orders indicate flexibility and evolving requirements. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost control by the contractor. 4. High number of bidders points to a competitive market for these services. 5. Contract awarded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration indicates internal operational support. 6. Performance in New York suggests a focus on a specific geographic region for service delivery.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $25.8 million over 10 years averages to approximately $2.58 million per year. This appears reasonable for comprehensive management and support services, especially considering the long duration. Benchmarking against similar long-term HHS contracts for administrative support would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common, requires careful monitoring to ensure costs remain controlled and the fixed fee is justified by the scope of work.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with six bidders participating. This indicates a robust and healthy competitive environment for these types of management and support services. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award. The agency's decision to pursue full and open competition suggests confidence in the market's ability to meet its needs.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive bidding process, which is expected to drive down costs and ensure the government receives the best value for its investment in these essential administrative services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely internal HHS departments and offices requiring administrative and management support. Services delivered encompass a broad range of management and support functions crucial for agency operations. The contract's performance is based in New York, indicating a geographic focus for service delivery. Workforce implications include potential job creation within the contractor's organization to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to contractor complacency if not actively managed.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Reliance on a single contractor for a decade may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a strong market offering and potential for competitive pricing.
Multiple task orders indicate the contract can adapt to evolving agency requirements.
The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on management and administrative support. This is a broad category essential for the functioning of large government agencies. The market for such services is highly competitive, with numerous firms capable of providing these capabilities. The total federal spending on management and support services is substantial, reflecting the government's ongoing need for operational efficiency and expertise across various departments.

Small Business Impact

While the contract was awarded under full and open competition and there is no explicit mention of small business set-asides, the presence of six bidders suggests that smaller firms may have participated in the bidding process or could potentially be involved as subcontractors. The agency's approach does not preclude subcontracting opportunities for small businesses to fulfill specific aspects of the management and support services required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. Performance metrics and regular reporting requirements would be key accountability measures. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

HHS Administrative Support Contracts
Federal Management Consulting Services
Government IT Support Services
Professional Services Administration Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may limit flexibility.
CPFF structure requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Performance data not fully available for comprehensive risk assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $25.8 million to MDRC. SERVICES (MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MDRC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-09-20. End: 2010-03-31.

What is the contractor's track record with the federal government, particularly with HHS?

The provided data identifies 'MDRC' as the contractor. Without further data, a comprehensive assessment of MDRC's track record is limited. However, a 10-year contract award from HHS suggests a level of trust and proven capability. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any previous contracts with HHS or other federal agencies, and any documented issues or commendations related to their service delivery. A history of successful contract completion and positive performance reviews would indicate reliability, while a pattern of issues might raise concerns about future performance.

How does the annual value of this contract compare to similar management and support service contracts within HHS?

This contract averages approximately $2.58 million per year over its 10-year duration. To benchmark this value, one would need to compare it against other HHS contracts for similar management and support services awarded during the same period or in subsequent years. Factors such as the specific scope of work, geographic location, and contract type (e.g., cost-plus vs. fixed-price) would need to be considered for a fair comparison. If similar contracts with comparable scopes are valued significantly higher or lower, it could indicate either exceptional value or potential overpricing/underbidding for this specific award.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risks with a CPFF contract of this scale and duration include potential cost overruns and reduced incentive for the contractor to control expenses beyond the agreed-upon fixed fee. While the fixed fee provides some cost certainty, the 'cost plus' component means the government bears the risk of increased direct costs. Effective risk mitigation requires robust oversight, detailed cost tracking, clear definition of allowable costs, and strong performance management to ensure the contractor operates efficiently and within reasonable cost parameters. The long duration also increases the risk of scope creep or evolving requirements that may not be adequately captured by the initial fixed fee.

How effective has the full and open competition process been in ensuring value for money for this contract?

The full and open competition, with six bidders, is a strong indicator that the process was designed to maximize value for money. This level of competition typically drives down prices and encourages innovation as multiple firms vie for the award. To assess effectiveness, one would analyze the bid prices submitted by the competitors and compare them to the awarded price. Furthermore, ongoing performance monitoring throughout the contract's life is crucial to ensure that the initial competitive advantage translates into sustained value. If the contractor consistently meets or exceeds performance expectations at the awarded price, the competition can be deemed effective.

What are the implications of the contract being performance-based (implied by 'DCA' award type, though not explicitly stated)?

While the award type 'DCA' (Defense Contract Audit Agency) is noted, and the contract is for management/support services, the schema does not explicitly state if it's performance-based. However, if it incorporates performance-based elements, it means that payment is tied to the achievement of specific, measurable performance outcomes. This shifts the focus from contractor effort to results. The implications are generally positive for the government, as it incentivizes the contractor to deliver high-quality services that meet defined standards. It also provides a clearer basis for evaluating contractor performance and making future award decisions, potentially leading to better service delivery and cost control.

What is the historical spending trend for similar management and support services at HHS?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar management and support services at HHS is crucial for context. This involves examining the agency's budget allocations and actual expenditures for these services over the past several years. Understanding whether spending has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable can reveal patterns in demand, the effectiveness of cost-containment strategies, and the overall importance of these services to HHS operations. A significant increase in spending might warrant closer scrutiny of contract values and necessity, while a decrease could indicate efficiency gains or shifting priorities.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 16 E 34TH ST FL 19, NEW YORK, NY, 10016

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,206,693

Exercised Options: $25,808,635

Current Obligation: $25,808,635

Timeline