HHS awarded $13.5M for community mental health services, with a significant portion for consulting

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,510,226 ($13.5M)

Contractor: ICF Macro Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2003-09-15

End Date: 2009-09-29

Contract Duration: 2,206 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.1K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: EVAL OF FY '02 & '03 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: BELTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGE'S County, MARYLAND, 20705

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $13.5 million to ICF MACRO INC for work described as: EVAL OF FY '02 & '03 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM Key points: 1. The contract focused on cooperative agreements for children and families, indicating a social service orientation. 2. A substantial portion of the award was for 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services', raising questions about direct service delivery. 3. The contract duration of over 2200 days suggests a long-term need or project. 4. The award was made non-competitively, limiting potential cost savings from market forces. 5. The contractor, ICF MACRO INC, has a history of performing government contracts. 6. The contract was a Delivery Order under a larger agreement, suggesting it's part of an existing framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed service breakdowns and comparable contract data. The award amount of $13.5 million over approximately six years suggests an average annual spend of around $2.25 million. The 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category is broad and could encompass a wide range of activities, making direct price comparisons difficult. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure implies that performance incentives influenced the final cost, but the extent of this influence is not detailed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This suggests that either the services were highly specialized, or there was a pre-existing relationship or framework agreement in place that allowed for this type of award. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down prices or spurred innovation from multiple vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding, as there was no market pressure to ensure the most cost-effective solution was selected.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are children and families receiving community mental health services. The contract supports the delivery of mental health services, potentially including counseling, support programs, and case management. The geographic impact is likely focused on the areas served by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) initiatives. The contract may have implications for the mental health workforce, including program managers, counselors, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potential cost savings.
Broad 'consulting services' category lacks transparency on specific activities and value.
Long contract duration could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

Focus on community mental health services addresses a critical social need.
Cooperative agreements suggest a partnership approach to service delivery.
Award to an established contractor may indicate reliability and expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Health Services sector, specifically focusing on mental health and social services. The 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' NAICS code (541690) is quite general and can encompass a wide array of professional services. Within the federal spending landscape, contracts for social services and consulting are common, but the specific combination and non-competitive nature of this award warrant attention. Comparable spending benchmarks would ideally look at other cooperative agreements for mental health services or consulting contracts awarded by SAMHSA or similar agencies.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. The award was made to ICF MACRO INC, a large business. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not explicitly detailed in the provided data, but given the nature of the services, there might be potential for specialized support roles to be subcontracted.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. As a delivery order under a cooperative agreement, the terms and performance would be monitored by the contracting officers and program managers at SAMHSA. Transparency regarding the specific use of funds and performance metrics would depend on SAMHSA's reporting requirements and public disclosure policies.

Related Government Programs

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant
Children's Mental Health Services Program

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Broad service category
Potential for cost overruns due to CPA structure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $13.5 million to ICF MACRO INC. EVAL OF FY '02 & '03 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ICF MACRO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-09-15. End: 2009-09-29.

What specific services were provided under the 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under the 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category. This broad classification could include program evaluation, research, technical assistance, policy analysis, or strategic planning related to community mental health services for children and families. To understand the value and impact, a detailed breakdown of the consulting activities and their direct link to improving mental health outcomes for the target population would be necessary. Without this granularity, it's difficult to assess if the funds were optimally utilized for direct service provision versus administrative or analytical support.

How does the $13.5 million award compare to similar cooperative agreements for mental health services?

Comparing the $13.5 million award for community mental health services to similar cooperative agreements requires access to a broader dataset of federal contracts. However, the award amount, spread over approximately six years (2206 days), suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $2.25 million. This figure needs to be contextualized by the scope of services, geographic reach, and the specific needs addressed. Cooperative agreements can vary significantly in size and purpose. A direct comparison would necessitate identifying contracts with similar objectives, target populations (children and families), and service modalities (mental health) awarded by SAMHSA or other federal agencies during a comparable timeframe.

What are the potential risks associated with a non-competitive delivery order for consulting services?

The primary risk associated with a non-competitive delivery order is the potential for reduced value for money. Without competition, there is less incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, and the government foregoes the opportunity to explore alternative solutions or pricing structures from multiple vendors. For consulting services, there's also a risk that the scope of work may not be as tightly defined or as aligned with actual needs as it might be under a competitive process. This can lead to inefficiencies, scope creep, or services that do not fully meet the intended objectives, ultimately impacting the effectiveness of the program.

What was the track record of ICF MACRO INC in delivering similar services prior to this award?

The provided data indicates that ICF MACRO INC was the contractor for this award. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on similar federal contracts, particularly those involving community mental health services, cooperative agreements, or consulting for health and human services agencies. Government contract databases and past performance reviews (if publicly available) would offer insights into their ability to meet deadlines, manage budgets, and deliver quality services. A positive track record would suggest a lower risk for this specific contract, while a history of issues might raise concerns about project execution and outcomes.

How effective has the Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program been historically?

The effectiveness of the 'Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program' is not directly quantifiable from the provided contract data alone. This contract represents a specific funding mechanism and service delivery approach within a broader program. To assess program effectiveness, one would need to look at outcome-based evaluations, performance metrics reported by SAMHSA, and data on the impact of these services on the mental health and well-being of children and families. Factors such as service utilization rates, client satisfaction, improvements in mental health symptoms, and long-term functional outcomes would be key indicators of success.

What is the historical spending trend for this specific type of cooperative agreement?

The provided data focuses on a single award of $13.5 million for FY '02 & '03 cooperative agreements. To understand historical spending trends for this specific type of cooperative agreement, a longitudinal analysis of SAMHSA's funding for community mental health services for children and families would be required. This would involve examining budget allocations, the number and value of similar cooperative agreements awarded over multiple fiscal years, and any shifts in program priorities or funding levels. Without this broader historical context, it's impossible to determine if this $13.5 million award represents a typical, increased, or decreased level of investment in such programs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: ICF International, Inc. (UEI: 139001544)

Address: 11785 BLTSVLLE DR STE 300, BELTSVILLE, MD, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,510,226

Exercised Options: $13,412,482

Current Obligation: $13,510,226

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 280031600

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline