GSA awards $17.7M for SAPRO evaluation training and technical assistance, with 4 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,721,583 ($17.7M)

Contractor: National Opinion Research Center

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2022-09-29

End Date: 2026-09-28

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: SAPRO EVALUATION TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22350

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $17.7 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER for work described as: SAPRO EVALUATION TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER Key points: 1. Contract value of $17.7M over 4 years suggests a significant investment in evaluation and training. 2. Full and open competition indicates a broad market search, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The contract is for Research and Development in Social Sciences and Humanities, aligning with specialized expertise. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. The award was made by the General Services Administration, a key procurement agency. 6. The contract duration of 1460 days (4 years) allows for sustained support and development.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $17.7M over four years averages to approximately $4.4M annually. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for large-scale evaluation, training, and technical assistance in social sciences and humanities is challenging without more specific service details. However, the number of bids suggests a competitive environment that likely drove a reasonable price. The fixed-price nature of the contract also implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. Four bids were received, indicating a healthy level of interest and competition for this requirement. A moderate number of bidders like this can often strike a balance between ensuring sufficient market exploration and avoiding overly complex evaluation processes. The competition likely contributed to price discovery and ensured the government received proposals from qualified entities.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process, with four bidders, suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that pressured contractors to offer competitive pricing and robust solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) programs, which will receive enhanced evaluation, training, and technical assistance. The services delivered will focus on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of programs related to substance abuse and mental health. The geographic impact is national, as the training and technical assistance are likely to be disseminated across various programs and potentially regions within the United States. Workforce implications include the potential for improved skills and knowledge among personnel involved in SAMHSA programs, leading to better service delivery.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if evaluation and training needs are not clearly defined and managed.
Dependence on the contractor's expertise in specialized social science and humanities research.
Ensuring consistent quality of training and technical assistance across all delivered services.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a wide net was cast for qualified contractors.
The fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract duration allows for sustained development and implementation of evaluation frameworks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on social sciences and humanities. This is a niche area requiring specialized expertise. The market for such services is driven by government agencies needing to evaluate program effectiveness, develop new methodologies, and provide technical assistance. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific nature of the evaluation and training, but contracts in this domain often involve significant investment due to the intellectual capital and analytical rigor required.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Therefore, the primary impact on the small business ecosystem would be through potential subcontracting opportunities if the prime contractor, National Opinion Research Center (NORC), chooses to engage small businesses for specialized tasks. Without explicit subcontracting plans, the direct impact on small businesses may be limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the General Services Administration (GSA) and the agency receiving the services (likely SAMHSA, given the context of SAPRO). Accountability measures will be tied to the performance work statement, delivery schedules, and quality standards outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific internal oversight processes are not detailed here. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

SAMHSA Evaluation and Technical Assistance Programs
Federal Research and Development Contracts
Government Training and Development Services
Social Science Research Grants
Program Evaluation Services

Risk Flags

Potential for contractor performance issues if expertise is not adequately applied.
Risk of the contract not fully meeting the evolving needs of the supported programs.
Dependency on the contractor for critical evaluation and training functions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $17.7 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER. SAPRO EVALUATION TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-29. End: 2026-09-28.

What is the track record of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in performing similar federal contracts, particularly in evaluation and technical assistance for social programs?

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago is a well-established research organization with a long history of conducting social science research and program evaluations for federal agencies. They have a significant portfolio of government contracts, often focusing on areas like health, education, and social welfare. Their expertise typically includes survey design, data analysis, and technical assistance. While specific details of past performance on contracts identical to this one would require deeper investigation into federal procurement databases, NORC's general reputation and extensive experience suggest a strong capability to handle complex evaluation and training requirements. Their track record generally indicates a capacity for high-quality research and reliable delivery of services.

How does the awarded value of $17.7 million compare to similar federal contracts for evaluation and technical assistance in the social sciences and humanities?

The awarded value of $17.7 million over four years, averaging approximately $4.4 million annually, places this contract in the mid-to-large range for specialized federal support services. Benchmarking requires precise comparison of scope, duration, and complexity. Contracts for large-scale national program evaluations, extensive training rollouts, and ongoing technical assistance can easily reach tens of millions of dollars. For instance, major health or education program evaluations by agencies like HHS or ED often exceed this figure. However, smaller, more targeted evaluations or training initiatives might be in the low millions. The $17.7M figure suggests a substantial, multi-faceted engagement rather than a narrowly focused project, consistent with the 'evaluation training and technical assistance center' description.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?

Key risks for this contract include potential scope creep, where the requirements for evaluation and technical assistance expand beyond the initial agreement, leading to cost overruns or schedule delays. Another risk is the contractor's ability to deliver consistently high-quality training and technical assistance across diverse program needs. Performance risk is also present, as the effectiveness of the evaluation and training directly impacts the success of the programs being supported. Mitigation strategies likely include a clearly defined Performance Work Statement (PWS), robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms by the government, regular progress reviews, and performance metrics tied to contract deliverables. The fixed-price nature of the contract also incentivizes the contractor to manage costs and scope effectively.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar 'SAPRO EVALUATION TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER' services by the federal government?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for a highly specific service like 'SAPRO EVALUATION TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER' requires identifying the relevant federal agency and the precise nature of the services procured. The provided data indicates the General Services Administration (GSA) as the awarding agency, but the ultimate recipient of the services is likely another agency, possibly related to substance abuse or mental health given the acronym 'SAPRO'. Without knowing the specific agency and a consistent categorization of these services over time, pinpointing exact historical spending is difficult. However, federal spending on program evaluation, technical assistance, and training, particularly within health and human services sectors, has generally been substantial and often increases during periods focused on evidence-based practices and program accountability. Trends often show a move towards more data-driven evaluation and tailored technical support.

How does the 'Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities' classification (NAICS 541720) influence the nature and expected outcomes of this contract?

The NAICS code 541720, 'Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities,' signifies that this contract is focused on activities that advance knowledge and understanding in areas such as sociology, psychology, economics, political science, anthropology, and history. For this contract, it implies that the evaluation and technical assistance will likely involve rigorous research methodologies, data collection and analysis specific to social contexts, and the development of new insights or best practices. The expected outcomes are not just operational improvements but also contributions to the theoretical or empirical understanding within the relevant social domains. This classification suggests a need for highly skilled researchers and analysts capable of designing and executing complex studies and translating findings into actionable training and guidance.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 47QFPA22R0078

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 55 E MONROE ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60603

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,337,268

Exercised Options: $20,079,235

Current Obligation: $17,721,583

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU213

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline