HHS awards $25.7M contract for GPDC model evaluation, with 3 bidders and a 5-year term

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,746,384 ($25.7M)

Contractor: National Opinion Research Center

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2021-09-10

End Date: 2026-09-09

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PERFORM THE EVALUATION OF THE GLOBAL AND PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CONTRACTING (GPDC) MODEL.

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR MILL, BALTIMORE County, MARYLAND, 21244

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $25.7 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PERFORM THE EVALUATION OF THE GLOBAL AND PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CONTRACTING (GPDC) MODEL. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on evaluating a critical federal contracting model, potentially improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust market for these services, likely leading to competitive pricing. 3. The contract's duration of 5 years indicates a long-term need for this evaluation. 4. Research and Development in Social Sciences and Humanities is a specialized field, requiring specific expertise. 5. The award to National Opinion Research Center suggests a focus on data collection and analysis capabilities. 6. Fixed-fee pricing structure provides some cost certainty for the government, though performance is key.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of $25.7 million over five years averages to approximately $5.15 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale research and evaluation contracts for federal models is challenging without more specific service details. However, the fixed-fee structure, combined with full and open competition, suggests a reasonable effort to secure value. The number of bidders (3) is moderate for a contract of this size and scope, indicating some level of competition but not an overwhelming number.

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 offers. Three bidders participated in this competition. While three bidders represent a degree of competition, it is on the lower end for a contract of this magnitude and could potentially limit the full range of price discovery compared to a scenario with a larger number of offers.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple firms to bid, driving down prices and increasing the likelihood of selecting the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Health and Human Services, which will gain insights into the effectiveness of the Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) model. The services delivered involve comprehensive evaluation, likely including data analysis, stakeholder interviews, and report generation. The geographic impact is national, as the GPDC model affects federal contracting across various agencies and programs. Workforce implications may include the need for specialized researchers, analysts, and project managers within the contracting organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if evaluation parameters are not tightly defined.
Reliance on the contractor's ability to accurately collect and analyze complex data.
Ensuring the evaluation findings are actionable and lead to meaningful improvements in the GPDC model.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
The contractor, National Opinion Research Center, has a history in research and evaluation.
A clear period of performance (5 years) allows for thorough evaluation and follow-through.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities sector, specifically focusing on the evaluation of a government contracting model. This is a niche area that requires expertise in social science research methodologies, data analysis, and an understanding of federal procurement processes. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale program evaluations or studies commissioned by federal agencies, often in the multi-million dollar range over several years.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, nor is there information suggesting specific subcontracting goals for small businesses. The award to a single, likely larger, research organization suggests that the primary focus was on specialized expertise rather than small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities exist within the awarded contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of Health and Human Services, likely the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services given the context of contracting models. Accountability measures would be tied to the delivery of evaluation reports and milestones as outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though the detailed findings of the evaluation may be internal.

Related Government Programs

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Audits
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directives
Program Evaluation and Performance Improvement Initiatives

Risk Flags

Moderate competition level for a contract of this size.
Potential for data access and stakeholder cooperation challenges.
Risk of scope creep in a multi-year evaluation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $25.7 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PERFORM THE EVALUATION OF THE GLOBAL AND PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CONTRACTING (GPDC) MODEL.

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 $25.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-09-10. End: 2026-09-09.

What is the National Opinion Research Center's track record with similar federal evaluation contracts?

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago has a long-standing reputation for conducting large-scale social science research and program evaluations for federal agencies. Their portfolio includes work for agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are known for their expertise in survey methodology, data analysis, and complex project management. While specific details on contracts directly evaluating federal contracting models like GPDC are not readily available in public summaries, their general experience in evaluating government programs and policies suggests they possess the foundational capabilities required for this task order. Their ability to manage large datasets and engage diverse stakeholders would be critical for the success of this evaluation.

How does the $25.7 million cost compare to similar federal program evaluations?

The $25.7 million cost over five years, averaging approximately $5.15 million annually, places this contract in the mid-to-high range for federal program evaluations. Large-scale, multi-faceted evaluations of complex government systems or models often require significant resources for data collection, analysis, stakeholder engagement, and reporting. For instance, evaluations of major healthcare programs, educational initiatives, or significant policy shifts can easily run into tens of millions of dollars over several years. Without knowing the precise scope and depth of the GPDC model evaluation, a direct comparison is difficult. However, given the potential complexity of evaluating a contracting model that likely impacts multiple agencies and processes, this budget appears commensurate with the undertaking, especially when considering the expertise required from a research organization like NORC.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract?

Key risks for this contract include the potential for the evaluation scope to become unmanageable or poorly defined, leading to cost overruns or delays. Another significant risk is the contractor's ability to access necessary data and cooperation from relevant stakeholders across different government entities, which can be challenging in large federal evaluations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the evaluation hinges on the quality of the research design and analytical rigor; any shortcomings here could result in findings that are not actionable or do not accurately reflect the GPDC model's performance. Finally, ensuring the independence and objectivity of the evaluation, particularly if the GPDC model has strong proponents or detractors within the government, is crucial for its credibility.

How effective is the GPDC model likely to be, based on the need for this evaluation?

The need for a comprehensive evaluation of the Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) model suggests that its effectiveness, efficiency, or adherence to intended goals may be under scrutiny or require validation. Federal agencies regularly evaluate their models and processes to ensure they are achieving desired outcomes, remaining compliant with regulations, and providing good value for taxpayer money. The fact that this evaluation is being undertaken indicates a commitment to performance improvement and accountability. It does not inherently imply the model is ineffective, but rather that its performance, impact, and potential areas for enhancement need to be systematically assessed. The findings of this evaluation will provide the definitive answer regarding the model's effectiveness.

What are historical spending patterns for similar federal contracting model evaluations?

Historical spending on federal contracting model evaluations varies widely depending on the complexity, scope, and duration of the evaluation. Smaller, more focused reviews might cost a few hundred thousand dollars, while comprehensive, multi-year assessments of major acquisition frameworks can easily reach tens of millions. For instance, evaluations of large IT procurement models or defense acquisition strategies have historically commanded significant budgets due to the intricate nature of the systems and the extensive data analysis required. The $25.7 million awarded here for the GPDC model evaluation aligns with the upper end of spending for substantial, long-term evaluations of significant federal operational frameworks. This suggests a precedent for investing substantial resources in understanding and improving core government operational mechanisms.

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: 3

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: $34,816,348

Exercised Options: $25,746,384

Current Obligation: $25,746,384

Actual Outlays: $22,209,387

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 3

Total Subaward Amount: $10,788,611

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 75FCMC19D0092

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline