HHS awards $7.3M contract for Vermont All-Payer ACO Model evaluation, supporting ACA mandates

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,286,465 ($7.3M)

Contractor: National Opinion Research Center

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2018-09-21

End Date: 2027-04-20

Contract Duration: 3,133 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT IS TO REQUEST A NEW TASK ORDER TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION OF THE VERMONT ALL-PAYER ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION MODEL WITHIN THE CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION. THIS CONTRACT IS BEING ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO FULFILL LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED ACTIVITIES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SECTION 3021. THIS IS A NON-SEVERABLE CONTRACT ACTION.

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR MILL, BALTIMORE County, MARYLAND, 21244

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $7.3 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT IS TO REQUEST A NEW TASK ORDER TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION OF THE VERMONT ALL-PAYER ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION MODEL WITHIN THE CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION. THIS CONTRACT IS BEING ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO FULFILL LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED… Key points: 1. Contract supports legislatively mandated activities under the Affordable Care Act. 2. Focuses on evaluating the Vermont All-Payer Accountable Care Organization Model. 3. Procurement method was full and open competition, indicating broad market access. 4. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, common for R&D and complex services. 5. Long performance period of nearly 9 years suggests a sustained evaluation effort. 6. The National Opinion Research Center is the awarded contractor. 7. This contract falls under the Research and Development in Social Sciences and Humanities NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $7.3 million over nearly 9 years for a complex program evaluation appears reasonable. While direct comparisons are difficult without knowing the specific scope and deliverables, the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure allows for flexibility in research while maintaining cost control through the fixed fee. Benchmarking against similar large-scale healthcare model evaluations would provide further insight into value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple offerors had the opportunity to bid. This method generally promotes competitive pricing and allows the government to select the best value solution from a wide range of potential contractors. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition is a positive indicator for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more cost-effective solutions and a wider pool of qualified contractors, potentially driving down overall service costs.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and potentially healthcare providers and patients involved in the Vermont All-Payer ACO Model. Services delivered include the evaluation and analysis of the Vermont All-Payer ACO Model. Geographic impact is primarily focused on Vermont, but findings could inform national healthcare policy. Workforce implications may involve researchers, analysts, and subject matter experts in healthcare policy and evaluation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts if not closely managed.
The long duration of the contract could lead to scope creep or require significant adjustments if the program evolves.
Ensuring the independence and objectivity of the evaluation is critical for its credibility.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Contract supports legislatively mandated activities, indicating alignment with government priorities.
The contractor, National Opinion Research Center, likely has specialized expertise in social science research and evaluation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities sector. This sector involves conducting research and investigations in fields such as economics, sociology, political science, and psychology. The contract's focus on evaluating a healthcare model aligns with the growing trend of using data-driven research to inform policy and improve program outcomes in healthcare.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans was not explicitly provided in the data. As this was a full and open competition, it is possible that small businesses could have participated directly or indirectly. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) program officials. Accountability measures would be tied to the delivery of evaluation reports and milestones as defined in the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through public reporting of evaluation findings, though specific oversight mechanisms are not detailed in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) initiatives
Accountable Care Organization (ACO) programs
Healthcare payment and delivery system reform
Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated evaluations

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or require significant adaptation.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure requires diligent government oversight to manage costs effectively.
Potential for contractor performance issues over an extended period.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $7.3 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT IS TO REQUEST A NEW TASK ORDER TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION OF THE VERMONT ALL-PAYER ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION MODEL WITHIN THE CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION. THIS CONTRACT IS BEING ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO FULFILL LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED ACTIVITIES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SECTION 3021. THIS IS A NON-SEVERABLE CONTRACT ACTION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-09-21. End: 2027-04-20.

What is the National Opinion Research Center's track record with similar government contracts, particularly in healthcare evaluation?

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago has a long-standing reputation for conducting large-scale, complex research and evaluation projects for federal agencies. They have extensive experience in health services research, program evaluation, and survey methodology. While specific details of past healthcare evaluation contracts are not provided here, NORC has been a significant contractor for agencies like HHS, NIH, and CDC, often undertaking studies related to healthcare access, quality, and policy. Their history suggests a capacity to manage contracts of this nature, though a deeper dive into their performance on comparable projects would be beneficial for a comprehensive risk assessment.

How does the cost of this evaluation compare to similar healthcare model evaluations conducted by other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the cost of this $7.3 million contract against similar healthcare model evaluations is challenging without more specific comparative data. Factors such as the scope of work, duration, complexity of the model being evaluated, and the specific research methodologies employed significantly influence costs. However, given the nearly 9-year performance period and the mandate to evaluate a state-level all-payer accountable care model, the investment appears aligned with the scale of such endeavors. Similar large-scale evaluations of national or multi-state healthcare initiatives often run into tens of millions of dollars over comparable timeframes. A detailed comparison would require identifying contracts with similar objectives, deliverables, and contractor expertise.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for a long-term evaluation?

The primary risks with a CPFF contract for a long-term evaluation like this include potential cost overruns if the contractor's actual costs exceed initial estimates, although the fixed fee provides a ceiling on the contractor's profit. For the government, the risk lies in ensuring that the contractor remains efficient and does not inflate costs, as the government bears the direct costs of performance. For a long-term project, there's also the risk of scope creep, where the project's objectives may expand beyond the original intent, leading to increased costs and potential delays. Effective government oversight, clear performance metrics, and regular reviews are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money throughout the contract's duration.

How effective are the oversight mechanisms for ensuring the quality and objectivity of the evaluation findings?

The effectiveness of oversight mechanisms hinges on the diligence of the contracting agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the specific program officials assigned to manage the contract. Standard oversight practices would include regular progress meetings, review of interim and final reports, and potentially independent quality assurance reviews. The contract's success in ensuring quality and objectivity will depend on clear performance standards, well-defined deliverables, and the agency's capacity to provide timely and constructive feedback. The fact that this supports a legislatively mandated activity suggests a high level of scrutiny is expected, but the specific details of the oversight plan are not provided.

What is the historical spending pattern for evaluations of similar healthcare models by CMS or CMMI?

Historical spending on evaluations of similar healthcare models by CMS and CMMI indicates a significant investment in understanding the impact of innovative payment and delivery systems. CMMI, in particular, is mandated to test various models, and evaluations are a core component of its work. Spending on these evaluations can range from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars, depending on the model's complexity, duration, and geographic scope. Contracts for comprehensive evaluations of large-scale initiatives, such as ACO models or bundled payment programs, often span multiple years and involve substantial research and analytical resources, reflecting the importance placed on evidence-based policymaking.

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: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1155 E 60TH ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60637

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: $7,286,465

Exercised Options: $7,286,465

Current Obligation: $7,286,465

Actual Outlays: $3,706,492

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HHSM500201400035I

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline