Social Security Administration awards $317K BPA for medical advisor services, reviewed by a single firm

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,680 ($31.7K)

Contractor: GM Psychological Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Social Security Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-02

End Date: 2026-06-30

Contract Duration: 89 days

Daily Burn Rate: $356/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVISOR SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MID-WEST/WEST (CHICAGO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR

Place of Performance

Location: BALTIMORE, BALTIMORE CITY County, MARYLAND, 21235

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Social Security Administration obligated $31,680 to GM PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. for work described as: BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVISOR SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MID-WEST/WEST (CHICAGO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable for specialized medical advisory services, though direct comparisons are limited without more detail on service scope. 2. The procurement was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies missed. 3. A single awardee suggests limited market engagement, potentially impacting price competitiveness and innovation. 4. The contract duration of approximately 3 months for a BPA call indicates a short-term need for these services. 5. The services are critical for the disability determination process, impacting the efficiency and accuracy of claims reviews. 6. The contractor, GM Psychological Services, Inc., is the sole provider for this specific BPA call, highlighting a lack of alternative options.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The award amount of $316,800 for a 3-month period for medical advisor services seems within a plausible range for specialized expertise. However, without detailed service level agreements or performance metrics, a robust value assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar contracts for disability claim reviews is difficult due to the specific nature of the services and the limited competition. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty but may not incentivize efficiency if the scope is not tightly managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The contract was awarded as a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, and the data indicates it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP'. This suggests that the competition strategy may have relied on pre-existing BPA terms or a specific justification for not conducting a new competition for this call order. The absence of explicit competition details for this specific call order makes it difficult to assess the number of bidders or the implications for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: When a contract is not competed, taxpayers may not benefit from the most competitive pricing that could be achieved through a broader solicitation process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals applying for disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, as the services support the claims review process. The services delivered involve medical consultant reviews of disability claim case files, ensuring that claims are assessed by qualified professionals. The geographic scope appears to be the Mid-West/West region, specifically mentioning Chicago, indicating a regional focus for these advisory services. The contract supports the operational workforce of the Social Security Administration by providing essential expertise for disability determinations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition for this BPA call could lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Limited transparency on the specific criteria used for selecting the sole awardee for this call order.
The short duration of the BPA call might indicate a reactive or urgent need, potentially bypassing more strategic procurement planning.

Positive Signals

The use of a BPA can streamline the procurement process for recurring needs.
The contract specifies firm-fixed-price, which provides cost predictability for the agency.
The services are essential for the accurate and timely processing of disability claims.

Sector Analysis

The healthcare services sector, particularly within government contracting, often involves specialized medical expertise. This contract falls under the 'Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists' NAICS code, indicating a focus on psychological and mental health evaluations. Government spending in this area supports various agency functions, including disability determination, healthcare program oversight, and personnel health services. Benchmarking is challenging as specific medical advisory roles can vary significantly in scope and required qualifications.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business set-aside (ss) and subcontracting (sb) were not applicable for this contract. This means that small businesses were not specifically targeted for this award, nor are there explicit requirements for subcontracting opportunities to be directed towards them under this BPA call.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Social Security Administration's contracting and program management offices. As a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) call, it operates under the umbrella of a larger BPA, which should have its own established oversight mechanisms. Transparency is moderate, as the award is publicly listed, but details regarding the justification for non-competition and performance monitoring are not readily available in this summary. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Social Security Administration Disability Insurance Program
Medical Consultant Services
Federal Healthcare Services
Government Contracted Medical Reviews

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Limited Performance Data
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Social Security Administration awarded $31,680 to GM PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.. BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVISOR SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MID-WEST/WEST (CHICAGO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GM PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Social Security Administration (Social Security Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31,680.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-02. End: 2026-06-30.

What is the track record of GM Psychological Services, Inc. in providing similar medical advisory services to federal agencies?

Information regarding the specific track record of GM Psychological Services, Inc. in providing medical advisory services to federal agencies, particularly for disability claim reviews, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported issues or successes with similar government contracts. Without this, it's difficult to gauge their experience level and reliability for this specific task. Further research into federal procurement databases and agency performance reports would be necessary to establish a detailed understanding of their past performance.

How does the per-unit cost of these medical reviews compare to market rates or similar government contracts?

The provided data does not include specific per-unit cost details for the medical reviews, nor does it offer a breakdown of how the total award amount of $316,800 is allocated per case or per review. Therefore, a direct comparison to market rates or similar government contracts is not feasible with the current information. To perform such a benchmark, one would need to know the estimated number of case files to be reviewed, the average time spent per review, and the hourly or case rate charged. This information is crucial for assessing the value for money and identifying potential cost efficiencies.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with awarding this contract without full and open competition?

The primary risk indicator associated with awarding this contract without full and open competition is the potential for a lack of price competition, which could lead to higher costs for the government and taxpayers. Without a competitive bidding process, there is less incentive for the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution. Additionally, a non-competed award may limit the agency's access to a wider pool of qualified vendors, potentially missing out on innovative approaches or specialized expertise that other firms might offer. This can also raise concerns about fairness and equal opportunity for other potential bidders.

How effective is the current approach to medical reviews in ensuring the accuracy and efficiency of disability claim processing?

The effectiveness of the current approach to medical reviews, as supported by this contract, is difficult to assess solely based on the award data. The contract's purpose is to provide medical consultant reviews for disability claim case files, which is a critical step in ensuring accuracy. However, the effectiveness hinges on the quality of the reviews, the qualifications of the medical consultants, and the integration of these reviews into the overall disability determination process. Without performance metrics, data on claim accuracy rates, or turnaround times for reviews, it's impossible to definitively state how effective this specific contract is in achieving those goals.

What are the historical spending patterns for medical advisory services by the Social Security Administration in the Mid-West/West region?

The provided data focuses on a single BPA call award and does not offer historical spending patterns for medical advisory services by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the Mid-West/West region. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to multi-year contract data for similar services, including award amounts, contract types, and the number of contracts awarded. This would allow for an assessment of trends, fluctuations in spending, and the overall investment in such services over time. Without this broader context, it's challenging to determine if the current award is consistent with past expenditures.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Health Care and Social Assistance › Offices of Physicians › Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICES › OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7001 NORTH AVE STE 202, OAK PARK, IL, 60302

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,680

Exercised Options: $31,680

Current Obligation: $31,680

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 28321321AC0540042

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline