Department of Education awards $9.98M contract for school violence prevention program evaluation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,984,337 ($10.0M)

Contractor: Research Triangle Institute

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2004-08-31

End Date: 2009-08-25

Contract Duration: 1,820 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EVALUATION OF A SCHOOL-BASED VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: DURHAM, DURHAM County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27709

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $10.0 million to RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE for work described as: EVALUATION OF A SCHOOL-BASED VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Research Triangle Institute for a 5-year evaluation of a school-based violence prevention program. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, indicating performance incentives. 3. Competition was full and open, suggesting a robust bidding process. 4. The contract duration is 1820 days, aligning with the program's evaluation needs. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541618 points to management consulting services. 6. The award was made by the Department of Education, highlighting a focus on educational policy and safety.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable studies. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests that the government aims to incentivize good performance, but the ultimate value depends on the effectiveness of the evaluation itself. The raw dollar amount of $9.98 million over five years appears reasonable for a comprehensive program evaluation, but a detailed cost breakdown and comparison to similar evaluation contracts would be needed for a more definitive assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. With 3 bidders identified, this suggests a moderate level of competition. While full and open competition is generally preferred for ensuring fair pricing and access to the best solutions, the specific number of bidders can influence price discovery. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition as it generally drives down costs and ensures that the government receives the best value for its investment. The presence of multiple bidders increases the likelihood of competitive pricing and reduces the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are students and educational institutions that will receive insights into effective violence prevention strategies. The services delivered include the evaluation of a school-based violence prevention program, aiming to identify successful interventions. The geographic impact is likely national, as the Department of Education oversees educational initiatives across the United States. Workforce implications may include employment for researchers, evaluators, and support staff at Research Triangle Institute and potentially within participating school districts.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Award Fee structure can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not carefully managed and monitored.
The effectiveness of the evaluation is contingent on the quality of the data collected and the rigor of the analytical methods employed.
Long-term impact and sustainability of the violence prevention strategies identified will require further study beyond this contract's scope.

Positive Signals

The use of full and open competition suggests a commitment to obtaining the best value and a wide range of potential solutions.
The five-year duration allows for a comprehensive and longitudinal evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
The award to Research Triangle Institute, a known research organization, suggests a focus on evidence-based practices and rigorous evaluation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Management Consulting Services sector, specifically focusing on program evaluation within the education domain. The market for educational research and evaluation services is driven by federal and state funding for education initiatives, aiming to improve student outcomes and school safety. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale program evaluations funded by the Department of Education or similar agencies.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. The award was made to Research Triangle Institute, a large research organization. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not explicitly detailed in the provided data, but it is possible that specialized research or data collection tasks could be subcontracted.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Education's program managers and contracting officers. Accountability measures are likely tied to the Cost Plus Award Fee structure, where performance against defined objectives influences the final payment. Transparency would be facilitated through the public availability of evaluation reports, though the specifics of internal oversight mechanisms are not detailed.

Related Government Programs

Department of Education Grants
School Safety Initiatives
Educational Program Evaluation
Violence Prevention Research

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure
Challenges in data collection and participant engagement
Difficulty in definitively measuring program impact
Reliance on contractor's performance for award fee determination

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $10.0 million to RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE. EVALUATION OF A SCHOOL-BASED VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-08-31. End: 2009-08-25.

What is the track record of Research Triangle Institute in conducting similar program evaluations for federal agencies?

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) has a well-established track record in conducting large-scale program evaluations and research for various federal agencies, including the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Their expertise spans a wide range of social science and public health domains. RTI has been involved in numerous studies related to education policy, student outcomes, and public health interventions. Their experience in managing complex data collection, analysis, and reporting for government contracts suggests a strong capability to execute the requirements of this school-based violence prevention program evaluation. Specific past performance details would typically be available in government databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or through agency-specific contract award announcements.

How does the $9.98 million cost compare to similar federal program evaluations?

The $9.98 million cost for a five-year evaluation of a school-based violence prevention program is within a reasonable range for large-scale federal research and evaluation contracts. The total cost is influenced by factors such as the scope of the evaluation, the number of sites or participants involved, the complexity of the program being evaluated, and the methodologies employed (e.g., longitudinal studies, randomized controlled trials). Without specific details on the evaluation's design and reach, a precise comparison is difficult. However, other federal evaluations of significant social programs can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars over similar timeframes. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure also means the final cost can vary based on performance, making direct comparisons to fixed-price contracts less straightforward.

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

Key risks for this contract include potential challenges in data collection (e.g., participant recruitment, data quality, attrition), the possibility that the violence prevention program may not yield significant measurable outcomes, and the risk of cost overruns inherent in a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract. Mitigation strategies likely involve rigorous project management by RTI, clear performance metrics and milestones defined by the Department of Education, and the CPAF structure itself, which incentivizes efficient and effective performance. The Department of Education's oversight will be crucial in monitoring progress, addressing data collection issues, and ensuring that the evaluation methodology is sound and unbiased. The selection of RTI, an experienced research organization, also serves as a risk mitigation factor.

How effective is the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type for evaluating social programs?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type can be effective for evaluating complex social programs like violence prevention initiatives, particularly when the scope of work or performance outcomes are not fully predictable at the outset. CPAF allows the government to reimburse the contractor for allowable costs while providing an award fee based on performance against predetermined criteria. This structure incentivizes the contractor to achieve high levels of performance and efficiency. For program evaluations, it can encourage thoroughness, innovation in methodology, and timely delivery of high-quality findings. However, it requires robust government oversight to ensure that the award fee criteria are objective, that performance is accurately assessed, and that costs remain reasonable. Without strong oversight, there's a risk of inflated costs or subjective award fee decisions.

What historical spending patterns exist for school violence prevention programs by the Department of Education?

The Department of Education has historically allocated significant funding towards initiatives aimed at improving school safety and preventing violence. This includes grants for school security measures, mental health services, conflict resolution programs, and research into the causes and prevention of school violence. Spending patterns can fluctuate based on national priorities, legislative mandates, and the availability of funding. While specific historical dollar amounts for 'violence prevention program evaluations' are not detailed here, the Department's consistent focus on these issues suggests a sustained commitment. Examining broader budget allocations for 'Safe and Drug-Free Schools' or 'Student Support' programs would provide context for the scale of investment in related areas over time.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 3040 CORNWALLIS RD, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PA, NC

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,201,690

Exercised Options: $10,201,690

Current Obligation: $9,984,337

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: ED01CO0052

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline