Grant Thornton LLP awarded $12.6M contract for CMS internal controls review, utilizing a maturity model approach

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,568,919 ($12.6M)

Contractor: Grant Thornton LLP

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2020-11-16

End Date: 2025-11-15

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THE A-123 CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE REVIEW OF INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER REPORTING WITHIN CMS USING A MATURITY MODE APPROACH.

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR MILL, BALTIMORE County, MARYLAND, 21244

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $12.6 million to GRANT THORNTON LLP for work described as: THE A-123 CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE REVIEW OF INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER REPORTING WITHIN CMS USING A MATURITY MODE APPROACH. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on enhancing internal controls over financial reporting, a critical function for CMS. 2. The maturity model approach suggests a structured, phased evaluation of control effectiveness. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 4. The contract duration of five years indicates a long-term need for these services. 5. Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services are essential for operational efficiency. 6. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $12.6 million over five years averages approximately $2.5 million annually. Benchmarking against similar consulting contracts for federal agencies requires detailed analysis of scope and deliverables. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the required services and associated costs. The award to Grant Thornton, a well-established firm, implies a competitive selection process that likely yielded a fair price for the expertise provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of two bidders (no: 2) suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, two offers are sufficient to establish a competitive baseline and ensure the government receives a reasonable offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition ensures that taxpayers benefit from a market-driven price, as contractors vie to offer the best value to win the award.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include CMS leadership and staff who will receive insights into control effectiveness. Services delivered include a review and assessment of internal controls over reporting. The geographic impact is primarily within CMS operations, likely centered in Maryland. Workforce implications include the engagement of specialized consulting expertise to support CMS's internal functions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if the maturity model approach is not clearly defined.
Reliance on contractor expertise may limit internal knowledge transfer if not managed proactively.

Positive Signals

Clear contract duration and defined service scope provide a stable framework.
Firm Fixed Price contract minimizes budget uncertainty for the government.
Award to a reputable firm suggests a high likelihood of quality service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically management consulting. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services to improve efficiency, implement new programs, and ensure compliance. The market for administrative management and general management consulting services is large and competitive, with numerous firms capable of providing such expertise. This contract represents a portion of the government's broader investment in operational improvement and oversight.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and opportunities for small business participation may be limited unless Grant Thornton voluntarily includes them in their subcontracting efforts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by contracting officers and program managers within CMS. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for performance against the agreed-upon scope. Transparency is facilitated by the contract's public availability, allowing for scrutiny of its terms and the contractor's performance. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Internal Controls
Financial Reporting Improvement
Management and Consulting Services
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Operations

Risk Flags

Potential for insufficient knowledge transfer
Risk of recommendations not aligning with agency culture

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $12.6 million to GRANT THORNTON LLP. THE A-123 CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE REVIEW OF INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER REPORTING WITHIN CMS USING A MATURITY MODE APPROACH.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRANT THORNTON LLP.

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 $12.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-11-16. End: 2025-11-15.

What is the specific maturity model being used for the review of internal controls?

The provided data does not specify the exact maturity model to be used for the review of internal controls. However, common maturity models in this domain include COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies), CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration), or agency-specific frameworks. The selection of a particular model would depend on CMS's existing infrastructure, regulatory requirements, and the specific objectives of the review. A well-defined maturity model allows for a standardized assessment of control capabilities, identifying gaps and providing a roadmap for improvement.

How does the $12.6 million contract value compare to similar federal contracts for internal control reviews?

Direct comparison of the $12.6 million contract value to similar federal contracts for internal control reviews is challenging without knowing the precise scope, duration, and specific deliverables. However, for a five-year engagement involving a comprehensive review of internal controls across a large agency like CMS, this value appears to be within a reasonable range. Larger agencies often require more extensive reviews, potentially involving more personnel hours and specialized expertise, thus driving up contract costs. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government has defined the scope sufficiently to estimate costs accurately.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. However, typical KPIs for a contract focused on reviewing internal controls using a maturity model would likely include the timely completion of assessment phases, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of findings, the clarity and actionability of recommendations, and the successful identification of control gaps and areas for improvement. Adherence to the chosen maturity model's stages and successful reporting of progress against defined milestones would also be critical performance metrics.

What is Grant Thornton LLP's track record with federal contracts, particularly in management consulting?

Grant Thornton LLP is a well-established professional services firm with a significant history of performing work for the federal government across various agencies and sectors, including management consulting, audit, and advisory services. They have held numerous federal contracts, often involving complex financial and operational reviews. Their track record generally indicates experience in delivering services related to internal controls, risk management, and process improvement. Specific performance details on past contracts would require further investigation into federal procurement databases and performance reports.

What is the potential risk associated with relying on an external contractor for internal control reviews?

The primary risk associated with relying on an external contractor for internal control reviews is the potential for a lack of deep, institutional knowledge that internal staff possess. This could lead to recommendations that are not fully aligned with the agency's unique operational context or culture. Another risk is the potential for insufficient knowledge transfer, where the agency does not fully internalize the findings and recommendations, leading to a dependency on external support. Ensuring robust oversight, clear communication, and collaborative engagement throughout the contract lifecycle can mitigate these risks.

How has CMS historically spent on administrative management and general management consulting services?

Historical spending by CMS on administrative management and general management consulting services can be substantial, reflecting the agency's complex operational needs and regulatory environment. While specific figures for this contract category are not provided, CMS, as one of the largest federal agencies, consistently procures a wide range of consulting services to support its mission. This includes areas like program management, IT modernization, financial management, and policy implementation. Annual spending can fluctuate based on strategic priorities, new initiatives, and evolving healthcare landscapes.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 171 N CLARK ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60601

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,568,919

Exercised Options: $12,568,919

Current Obligation: $12,568,919

Actual Outlays: $9,602,840

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00F143CA

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline