HUD awards $2.7M contract for formula grant process improvement to Guidehouse Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,745,222 ($2.7M)

Contractor: Guidehouse Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2023-09-30

End Date: 2026-09-29

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Other

Official Description: EO14042 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE ANNUAL FORMULA GRANT ALLOCATION PROCESS AND IMPROVE ITS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF PROGRAMS, MITIGATE HISTORICAL AND REPETITIVE EFFORTS, AND BUILD TRUST WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.

Place of Performance

Location: CHICAGO, COOK County, ILLINOIS, 60601

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $2.7 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC. for work described as: EO14042 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE ANNUAL FORMULA GRANT ALLOCATION PROCESS AND IMPROVE ITS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF PROGRAMS, MITIGATE HISTORICAL AND REPETITIVE EFFORTS, AND BUILD TRUST WITH ITS CUSTOMERS. Key points: 1. Contract aims to enhance legal and financial integrity of housing programs. 2. Focus on mitigating historical and repetitive efforts to improve efficiency. 3. Efforts to build trust with customers are a key objective. 4. Contract duration of three years suggests a medium-term project. 5. Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services are the core focus. 6. The contract is a BPA Call, indicating a pre-competed framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $2.7 million over three years appears reasonable for the scope of administrative management and consulting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for program integrity and process improvement within federal agencies suggests this is within a typical range. The pricing structure, based on labor hours, allows for flexibility but requires careful monitoring to ensure cost-effectiveness. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the stated objectives align with common needs for agency efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a competitive process was utilized. This approach generally leads to better price discovery and a wider selection of qualified contractors. The use of a BPA Call implies that the underlying Blanket Purchase Agreement was already competed, and this call leverages that existing competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that is expected to yield a fair price and high-quality services. Full and open competition reduces the risk of inflated costs and ensures that the government is obtaining services from the most capable and cost-effective provider.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its customers, who will experience improved program integrity and trust. Services delivered focus on enhancing the legal and financial processes of annual formula grant allocations. The geographic impact is national, as HUD programs typically serve communities across the United States. Workforce implications may involve internal HUD staff collaborating with Guidehouse Inc. on process improvements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if 'mitigate historical and repetitive efforts' is not clearly defined.
Reliance on labor hours could lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Measuring the 'improvement of legal and financial integrity' can be subjective and require robust metrics.

Positive Signals

Clear objective to improve program integrity and build customer trust.
Leverages a BPA Call, suggesting a streamlined and potentially cost-effective procurement.
Contractor, Guidehouse Inc., is a known entity in management consulting, implying relevant expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services to improve operational efficiency, program delivery, and regulatory compliance. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar consulting engagements aimed at process improvement and integrity enhancement within large federal agencies can range from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars, depending on the complexity and duration. This contract's value appears aligned with typical engagements of this nature.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate any specific small business set-aside. Guidehouse Inc. is a large business. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, unless Guidehouse Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the contracting officer and program officials within HUD responsible for the formula grant allocation process. Accountability measures will be tied to the successful achievement of the stated objectives: improving legal and financial integrity, mitigating repetitive efforts, and building customer trust. Transparency will depend on HUD's internal reporting and any public-facing information released regarding program improvements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

HUD Formula Grant Programs
Federal Program Integrity Initiatives
Administrative Process Improvement Contracts
Management and Consulting Services for Government Agencies

Risk Flags

Potential for subjective performance measurement.
Risk of scope creep in process improvement initiatives.
Dependence on contractor's understanding of complex grant regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $2.7 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC.. EO14042 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE ANNUAL FORMULA GRANT ALLOCATION PROCESS AND IMPROVE ITS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF PROGRAMS, MITIGATE HISTORICAL AND REPETITIVE EFFORTS, AND BUILD TRUST WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GUIDEHOUSE INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department of Housing and Urban Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-30. End: 2026-09-29.

What is Guidehouse Inc.'s track record with similar federal contracts, particularly those focused on program integrity and process improvement?

Guidehouse Inc. has a significant track record with federal agencies, including HUD, providing a range of consulting services. They are known for expertise in areas such as financial management, program modernization, and operational efficiency. While specific details on past program integrity contracts with HUD are not provided in this data snippet, Guidehouse's broader portfolio suggests they possess the capabilities to address the stated objectives. A deeper dive into their contract history, performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS), and past project outcomes would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their suitability and past success in similar engagements.

How does the $2.7 million contract value compare to similar federal contracts for administrative management and consulting services aimed at program integrity?

The $2.7 million contract value over three years, averaging approximately $900,000 per year, is within the typical range for federal contracts focused on administrative management and process improvement for large agencies like HUD. Similar engagements involving program analysis, legal/financial integrity enhancement, and stakeholder trust-building often fall within this budget bracket. Factors influencing cost include the complexity of the programs, the scope of analysis required, the number of stakeholders involved, and the duration of the engagement. Without specific details on the number of formula grant programs covered or the depth of the required analysis, a precise comparison is difficult, but the award appears to be a moderate-sized investment for the stated goals.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be used to measure the success of this contract in improving program integrity and building trust?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract. However, for a contract focused on improving 'legal and financial integrity' and 'building trust,' potential KPIs could include metrics related to audit findings reduction, error rate decrease in grant allocations, improved compliance scores, faster processing times for grants, increased positive feedback from grant recipients (customers), and successful implementation of new procedural controls. The effectiveness of the contractor will likely be assessed against these or similar measurable outcomes, which should be detailed in the contract's statement of work and performance requirements.

What is the historical spending pattern of HUD on administrative management and general management consulting services, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?

HUD, like many large federal agencies, consistently spends significant amounts on administrative management and consulting services to support its diverse programs and operational needs. Historical spending data would reveal patterns related to specific areas like housing finance, community development, and program oversight. This $2.7 million contract for formula grant process improvement appears to be a targeted investment within HUD's broader consulting expenditure. It aligns with the agency's ongoing need to ensure the efficiency, legality, and effectiveness of its grant allocation mechanisms, suggesting it is a continuation or enhancement of efforts to maintain program integrity and stakeholder confidence.

What specific risks are associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Potential risks include the contractor's ability to fully understand and navigate the complexities of HUD's formula grant programs, potential resistance to change from internal stakeholders, and challenges in objectively measuring improvements in 'legal and financial integrity' and 'trust.' Mitigation strategies, though not explicitly detailed, would typically involve clear definition of scope and deliverables in the contract, robust project management by both the contractor and HUD, regular progress reviews, and the establishment of specific, measurable performance metrics. The use of a full and open competition also mitigates the risk of selecting an unqualified vendor.

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) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 86615123Q00010

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.

Address: 1676 INTERNATIONAL DR STE 800, MCLEAN, IL, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,745,222

Exercised Options: $2,745,222

Current Obligation: $2,745,222

Actual Outlays: $2,340,572

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 86615121A00002

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline