SSA's $1.5M Medical Consultant Services BPA for Disability Claims Faces Scrutiny for Lack of Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $149,214 ($149.2K)

Contractor: Myles Friedland

Awarding Agency: Social Security Administration

Start Date: 2026-07-01

End Date: 2027-12-31

Contract Duration: 548 days

Daily Burn Rate: $272/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 REGIONAL MEDICAL CONSULTANT (RMC) SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (SAN FRANCISCO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DI

Place of Performance

Location: OAKLAND, ALAMEDA County, CALIFORNIA, 94609

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Social Security Administration obligated $149,213.6 to MYLES FRIEDLAND for work described as: BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CONSULTANT (RMC) SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (SAN FRANCISCO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DI Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is difficult to assess due to the absence of competitive bidding. 2. Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced innovation. 3. The sole-source nature of this award is a significant risk indicator. 4. Performance context is limited to reviews of disability claim case files. 5. This contract positions the Social Security Administration to address regional medical consultation needs. 6. The fixed-price contract type offers some cost predictability.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value is difficult to benchmark against similar services due to its non-competitive award. Without a competitive process, it's challenging to determine if the $1.5 million price tag represents a fair market value for the regional medical consultant services. The fixed-price nature provides some cost certainty, but the lack of comparative bids prevents a robust assessment of cost-effectiveness. Further analysis would require understanding the specific scope of work and comparing it to industry standards for similar medical review services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), indicating a sole-source award. The absence of a competitive process means there were no multiple bidders to drive price discovery or ensure the most advantageous offer was selected. This approach limits the agency's ability to leverage market forces for better pricing and service quality.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there is a higher risk of paying more than necessary for the services provided, as the benefits of competition in driving down costs are forgone.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries of the Social Security Administration's disability programs will experience more timely and potentially accurate claim reviews. The services delivered include medical reviews of disability claim case files. The geographic impact is focused on the Southwest Region, specifically San Francisco, California. The contract supports the agency's administrative functions rather than directly impacting a broad workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

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 (621112), indicating a focus on medical consultation. Government spending in this area supports administrative functions like disability claims processing. Benchmarking this specific contract is difficult without competitive data, but similar contracts for medical review services can range significantly in cost depending on scope and volume.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not competed under SAP and does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements. Therefore, there is no direct analysis of its impact on the small business ecosystem or specific set-aside goals. The absence of small business considerations in the award process means opportunities for small businesses in this specific procurement are likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Social Security Administration's internal review processes and contract management. As a BPA call, it is a task order against a larger agreement. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature. There is no explicit mention of Inspector General jurisdiction for this specific award, though the SSA OIG generally oversees agency programs.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

social-security-administration, healthcare, medical-consultant-services, disability-claims, blanket-purchase-agreement, bpa-call, sole-source, california, southwest-region, fixed-price, offices-of-physicians-mental-health-specialists, 621112

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Social Security Administration awarded $149,213.6 to MYLES FRIEDLAND. BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CONSULTANT (RMC) SERVICES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (SAN FRANCISCO). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MYLES FRIEDLAND.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $149,213.6.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-07-01. End: 2027-12-31.

What is the track record of Myles Friedland in providing medical consultant services to federal agencies?

Information regarding the specific track record of Myles Friedland in providing medical consultant services to federal agencies is not readily available within the provided data. As this appears to be a sole-source award, historical performance data from competitive bids or past performance evaluations may not be publicly accessible or directly comparable. Further investigation would be required to ascertain the contractor's experience, past performance ratings, and any relevant project history with government entities. Understanding their previous work, especially on similar disability claims review contracts, would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their suitability and potential value.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar medical consultant services procured competitively by the SSA or other agencies?

Direct comparison of pricing is challenging due to the sole-source nature of this contract. Without competitive bids, it's impossible to establish a benchmark against market rates or similar competitively awarded contracts. To assess value, one would need to compare the per-case review cost or hourly rates against industry standards for medical consultants performing disability claim evaluations. Agencies typically use competitive processes to ensure they are receiving fair market value. The absence of this process here means the $1.5 million figure cannot be validated against a competitive landscape, raising questions about potential overpayment.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for essential medical consultant services?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award for essential services like medical consulting include a lack of price competition, potentially leading to higher costs for the government and taxpayers. It can also reduce the incentive for the contractor to innovate or provide the highest quality service, as there is no immediate threat of losing business to competitors. Furthermore, sole-source awards can limit transparency and accountability in the procurement process. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the agency becomes dependent on a single provider without exploring potentially better or more cost-effective alternatives that a competitive market might offer.

How effective is the current BPA structure in ensuring the Social Security Administration receives timely and accurate disability claim reviews?

The effectiveness of the current BPA structure in ensuring timely and accurate disability claim reviews hinges on the execution by Myles Friedland and the oversight provided by the Social Security Administration. While the BPA itself is a mechanism for efficient procurement, its effectiveness is tied to the contractor's performance and the clarity of the Statement of Work. The contract specifies reviews of disability claim case files, suggesting a direct link to claim processing. However, without performance metrics, quality assurance data, or comparative analysis from competitive procurements, it is difficult to definitively assess the effectiveness of the service delivery under this specific BPA call.

What is the historical spending pattern for medical consultant services by the Social Security Administration in the Southwest Region?

Historical spending patterns for medical consultant services by the Social Security Administration in the Southwest Region are not detailed in the provided data. This specific contract is a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) call valued at approximately $1.5 million, with an estimated duration of 548 days. To understand historical trends, one would need to access broader procurement databases or SSA budget reports that track spending on similar services over multiple fiscal years and across different regions. The current data point represents a single instance of procurement, making it difficult to establish a pattern or trend in isolation.

Are there any specific performance metrics or KPIs defined within this BPA call to measure the quality and timeliness of medical reviews?

The provided data does not explicitly detail specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) within this BPA call. While the contract is for 'Reviews by Medical Consultant of Disability Claim Case Files,' the absence of defined metrics makes it challenging to objectively measure the quality, accuracy, or timeliness of these reviews. Effective government contracts typically include measurable performance standards to ensure accountability and value for money. Without such metrics, assessing the contractor's performance and the overall success of this procurement becomes more reliant on qualitative assessments and agency oversight.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Health Care and Social AssistanceOffices of PhysiciansOffices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICESOTHER 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: 4316 WEBSTER ST, OAKLAND, CA, 94609

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $149,214

Exercised Options: $149,214

Current Obligation: $149,214

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 28321321AC0940024

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline

Start Date: 2026-07-01

Current End Date: 2027-12-31

Potential End Date: 2027-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2026-04-07

Other Social Security Administration Contracts

View all Social Security Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending