HHS awards $6.28M contract for kidney transplant model evaluation, spanning three years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,276,103 ($6.3M)

Contractor: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2026-04-09

End Date: 2029-04-08

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK ORDER IS TO OBTAIN CONTRACTOR SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE INCREASING ORGAN ACCESS TRANSPLANT (IOTA) MODEL. THE TASK ORDER WILL ASSESS THE MODEL'S EFFECT ON THE DELIVERY OF KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, DISCARD O

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22202

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $6.3 million to AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK ORDER IS TO OBTAIN CONTRACTOR SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE INCREASING ORGAN ACCESS TRANSPLANT (IOTA) MODEL. THE TASK ORDER WILL ASSESS THE MODEL'S EFFECT ON THE DELIVERY OF KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, DISCARD O Key points: 1. Contract focuses on evaluating the Increasing Organ Access Transplant (IOTA) model's impact on kidney transplant delivery and organ discard rates. 2. The task order is a cost-plus-fixed-fee type, indicating potential for cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. A 1095-day duration suggests a comprehensive, long-term evaluation is planned. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, implying a robust selection process. 5. The contractor, American Institutes for Research, has a background in behavioral sciences, relevant to evaluating complex healthcare models. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541720 points to Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities. 7. This award represents a targeted investment in improving organ transplant efficiency and outcomes.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $6.28 million for a three-year evaluation of a complex healthcare model appears reasonable. Benchmarking against similar large-scale program evaluations suggests this is within expected cost ranges. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, while common for research and development, necessitates close monitoring to ensure costs remain aligned with the defined scope and objectives. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the contractor.

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. This competitive process is designed to foster price discovery and ensure the government receives the best value. The presence of 7 bidders, as indicated by the 'no' field, suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this specialized research task.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally leads to more competitive pricing for taxpayers, as contractors vie to offer the most cost-effective solution while meeting stringent requirements.

Public Impact

Patients awaiting kidney transplants may benefit from improved access and reduced wait times due to the evaluation of the IOTA model. Healthcare providers and transplant centers will receive insights into optimizing organ utilization and transplant procedures. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will gain data-driven evidence to inform policy decisions regarding organ transplantation. The research will contribute to the broader understanding of healthcare delivery models and their effectiveness in the United States. The evaluation could lead to policy changes that reduce the discard rate of viable organs, increasing the overall supply for transplantation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if not meticulously managed and monitored for scope creep.
The complexity of evaluating a transplant model requires specialized expertise, and any gaps in the contractor's domain knowledge could pose a risk.
Ensuring the independence and objectivity of the evaluation is crucial to its credibility and impact on policy.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a thorough vetting of proposals and competitive pricing.
The contractor, American Institutes for Research, has a strong background in behavioral sciences and research, aligning with the task's nature.
The three-year duration allows for in-depth analysis and comprehensive data collection, increasing the likelihood of meaningful findings.
The focus on improving organ transplant access and reducing discard rates addresses a critical public health need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on social sciences and humanities as indicated by NAICS code 541720. The market for healthcare policy research and program evaluation is substantial, driven by government agencies seeking evidence-based improvements in healthcare delivery. Comparable spending in this area often involves large-scale studies, data analysis, and expert consultation to inform policy and operational changes within complex systems like organ transplantation.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses is likely minimal unless they are part of a subcontracting team. The primary contractor, American Institutes for Research, is a large research organization. Future subcontracting opportunities may arise, but the initial award does not prioritize small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) program officials responsible for the IOTA model and transplant policy. Accountability measures will be embedded in the task order's deliverables, milestones, and reporting requirements. Transparency will be facilitated through regular progress reports and the eventual publication of the evaluation findings. Specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the broader CMS oversight framework for research and evaluation contracts.

Related Government Programs

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Modernization Initiative
Medicare Quality Improvement Programs
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Grants
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Studies

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure.
Ensuring data integrity and accessibility for a comprehensive evaluation.
Maintaining contractor independence and objectivity throughout the research process.
Complexity of isolating the IOTA model's impact from other systemic factors.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $6.3 million to AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK ORDER IS TO OBTAIN CONTRACTOR SERVICES TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE INCREASING ORGAN ACCESS TRANSPLANT (IOTA) MODEL. THE TASK ORDER WILL ASSESS THE MODEL'S EFFECT ON THE DELIVERY OF KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS, DISCARD O

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES.

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 $6.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-09. End: 2029-04-08.

What is the specific methodology the contractor will employ to evaluate the IOTA model?

The task order specifies that the contractor will conduct an independent evaluation of the Increasing Organ Access Transplant (IOTA) model. While the detailed methodology is not fully elaborated in the provided data, typical approaches for such evaluations include mixed-methods research, combining quantitative analysis of transplant data (e.g., waitlist times, transplant rates, organ discard rates) with qualitative data collection (e.g., interviews with stakeholders, case studies of transplant centers). The evaluation will likely assess the model's impact on key performance indicators related to kidney transplant delivery and organ utilization. The contractor's expertise in social sciences and humanities research suggests a robust analytical framework will be applied to understand the model's effectiveness and potential areas for improvement.

How does the $6.28 million contract value compare to similar healthcare program evaluations?

The $6.28 million contract value for a three-year evaluation of a significant healthcare model like IOTA is generally considered within a reasonable range for large-scale, complex research projects. Similar evaluations of national healthcare programs or policy impacts by agencies like CMS or AHRQ can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the scope, duration, and data complexity. Factors influencing cost include the number of sites or patient populations studied, the depth of analysis required, and the need for specialized expertise. Given the critical nature of organ transplantation and the potential for policy implications, this investment appears proportionate to the expected outcomes.

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

Primary risks include the complexity of accurately measuring the IOTA model's impact amidst other influencing factors in the transplant system, potential delays in data access or availability, and ensuring the contractor maintains objectivity throughout the evaluation. Mitigation strategies likely involve clearly defined evaluation metrics and data collection protocols within the task order, strong project management by CMS to facilitate data sharing and address roadblocks, and the requirement for an independent evaluation to ensure unbiased findings. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure also requires diligent oversight to manage costs effectively and prevent scope creep, ensuring the project stays within budget while achieving its objectives.

What is the track record of American Institutes for Research (AIR) in conducting healthcare policy evaluations?

American Institutes for Research (AIR) is a well-established research organization with extensive experience in conducting evaluations of health policies and programs. They have a strong track record in areas such as health services research, health equity, and program implementation studies. AIR frequently partners with federal agencies, including HHS, CMS, and NIH, on projects that require rigorous data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and the development of evidence-based recommendations. Their expertise in social sciences and behavioral research is particularly relevant for understanding the complex dynamics of healthcare delivery systems and patient outcomes, making them a suitable candidate for evaluating the IOTA model.

How might the findings of this evaluation influence future federal spending on organ transplantation?

The findings from this evaluation could significantly influence future federal spending on organ transplantation by providing evidence-based recommendations for optimizing the IOTA model or other similar initiatives. If the evaluation demonstrates that the IOTA model effectively increases organ access and reduces discard rates, it could lead to broader adoption and increased investment in similar strategies. Conversely, if the model proves inefficient or has unintended negative consequences, federal agencies might reallocate funds towards alternative approaches or invest in modifications to the existing model. The data generated will be crucial for CMS and other stakeholders in making informed decisions about resource allocation and policy development to improve transplant outcomes.

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: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › N – Health R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 75FCMC26R00210001

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1400 CRYSTAL DR 10TH FLR, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

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: $14,999,661

Exercised Options: $6,276,103

Current Obligation: $6,276,103

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 75FCMC19D0082

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline