Department of Education awards $79.8M contract for educational assessment development, with a 2010 duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $79,776,659 ($79.8M)

Contractor: Educational Testing Service

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2019-07-01

End Date: 2024-12-31

Contract Duration: 2,010 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS ITEM DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20202

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $79.8 million to EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE for work described as: NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS ITEM DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Key points: 1. The contract's duration of 2010 years is significantly longer than typical federal contracts, raising questions about its efficiency and adaptability. 2. While the contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, the specific award fee structure and its impact on contractor performance are not detailed. 3. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing environment. 4. The contractor, Educational Testing Service, has a long history in educational assessment, indicating relevant expertise. 5. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a critical program for understanding educational trends, making this contract's performance vital. 6. The contract's value of nearly $80 million over its extended period warrants scrutiny for value for money.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the extended duration and the specific nature of R&D in educational assessment. The total award value of $79.8 million spread over a 2010 duration (likely referring to a base period or a historical reference point rather than the contract's actual lifespan) suggests a significant investment. Without more granular data on deliverables and performance metrics, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies that performance incentives are tied to achieving specific objectives, which can be a positive indicator if well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This process is generally expected to foster competitive pricing and encourage the selection of the most capable contractor. The presence of two bidders, as indicated in the data, suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a fair market price and reduces the risk of inflated costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are students and educators across the nation, who will be assessed through the NAEP program. The contract supports the development of items and materials for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a key federal education statistics program. The geographic impact is national, as NAEP assessments are administered across all states and jurisdictions. The contract has implications for the education research and development workforce, particularly those specializing in psychometrics and assessment design.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The extended duration (2010) raises concerns about potential cost overruns and the need for contract modifications.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure award fees are justified by performance.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the contract.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
The contractor, Educational Testing Service, is a recognized leader in the field of educational assessment.
The contract supports a critical national program (NAEP) that provides valuable data on educational progress.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities sector, specifically focusing on educational measurement and assessment. The market for educational testing and assessment services is substantial, with significant government and private sector spending. This contract represents a key component of federal efforts to monitor and evaluate educational outcomes nationwide through the NAEP program.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through set-asides is minimal. However, the prime contractor, Educational Testing Service, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services, though this is not explicitly detailed in the provided information.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Education's Inspector General and relevant program offices within the Institute of Education Sciences. Mechanisms for oversight would include regular performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to contractual milestones. Transparency is generally maintained through contract awards databases and public reporting on NAEP results.

Related Government Programs

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Research Grants
Educational Statistics Development Contracts
Federal Education Data Collection Initiatives

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration (potential for inefficiency)
Ambiguity in 'dur' data point requires clarification
Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates strong oversight

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $79.8 million to EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS ITEM DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Education (Department of Education).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $79.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-07-01. End: 2024-12-31.

What is the significance of the '2010' duration mentioned for this contract?

The 'dur': 2010 data point is ambiguous and likely refers to a historical reference year or a base period rather than the actual contract duration. Federal contracts typically have defined start and end dates, such as the 'sd': 2019-07-01 and 'ed': 2024-12-31 provided. A contract duration of 2010 years is not feasible. It's possible this refers to the year the contract was initially conceived or a significant milestone year related to the program it supports. Clarification would be needed from the source data to understand its precise meaning in the context of the contract's lifecycle.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure impact contractor incentives and costs?

A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a fixed fee, plus an award fee based on performance against pre-defined criteria. This structure incentivizes the contractor to exceed minimum performance requirements to earn the award fee. For the government, it offers flexibility to reward exceptional performance. However, it requires robust oversight to ensure the award fee criteria are objective, measurable, and fairly applied, and that the total cost remains reasonable.

What is the track record of Educational Testing Service (ETS) with federal contracts, particularly in educational assessment?

Educational Testing Service (ETS) is a highly reputable and long-standing organization in the field of educational measurement and assessment. They are well-known for developing and administering standardized tests, including the GRE and TOEFL. ETS has a significant history of working with federal agencies, including the Department of Education, on large-scale assessment programs like NAEP. Their extensive experience and established infrastructure suggest a strong capability to fulfill the requirements of this contract.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar federal contracts for educational assessment development?

Directly comparing the pricing of this $79.8 million contract to 'similar' federal contracts is challenging without specific benchmarks for comparable scope, complexity, and duration. However, given that it was awarded through full and open competition with two bidders, it suggests a degree of market validation. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, while common, can lead to variable costs. A detailed cost-reconciliation and performance review would be necessary to ascertain if the pricing represents good value relative to market rates for equivalent services.

What are the key risks associated with this contract, and how are they being managed?

Key risks include potential scope creep, challenges in accurately measuring and rewarding performance under the CPAF structure, and ensuring the long-term relevance and quality of assessment items. Management of these risks would involve rigorous contract oversight, clear definition and monitoring of performance metrics, regular communication between the government and contractor, and potentially incorporating mechanisms for adapting to evolving educational standards or technological changes.

What is the historical spending pattern for NAEP item development by the Department of Education?

Historical spending patterns for NAEP item development by the Department of Education would likely show consistent, significant investment over time, reflecting the program's ongoing nature. This contract, valued at approximately $79.8 million, represents a substantial portion of that investment for its period of performance. Analyzing prior contracts for NAEP development would reveal trends in cost, contractor selection, and program evolution, providing context for the current contract's scale and objectives.

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: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 91990018R0018

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 660 ROSEDALE RD, PRINCETON, NJ, 08540

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: $131,188,010

Exercised Options: $96,284,020

Current Obligation: $79,776,659

Actual Outlays: $79,566,961

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline