Department of Education's $11.7M teacher mobility contract with Mathematica Inc. awarded in 2007

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,682,525 ($11.7M)

Contractor: Mathematica Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2007-09-10

End Date: 2015-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,850 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.1K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EVALUATION OF MOVING HIGH PERFORMING TEACHERS

Place of Performance

Location: PRINCETON, MERCER County, NEW JERSEY, 08540

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $11.7 million to MATHEMATICA INC. for work described as: EVALUATION OF MOVING HIGH PERFORMING TEACHERS Key points: 1. The contract aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of moving high-performing teachers to high-need schools. 2. Awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating a selection from pre-existing contract vehicles. 3. The contract type was Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes contractor performance through award amounts. 4. The duration of the contract was substantial, spanning nearly eight years. 5. The geographic focus was New Jersey, suggesting a localized study or pilot program. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611710 points to educational support services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $11.7 million over nearly eight years for an evaluation study appears reasonable for its scope. However, without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Comparing it to similar educational research and evaluation contracts would provide better context, but such data is not readily available. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests an effort to link payment to performance, which is a positive indicator, but the actual award amounts and their justification are not detailed here.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

This contract was awarded as a 'COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER,' which implies it was competed under a larger, pre-existing contract vehicle. The 'no' field indicates 2 offers were received, suggesting a moderate level of competition for this specific delivery order. While competed, the limited number of offers might suggest that the pool of eligible contractors for this specialized service was not extensive, or that the specific requirements of the delivery order narrowed the field.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for taxpayers compared to sole-source awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely educators, policymakers, and researchers interested in teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. The services delivered involved the evaluation of strategies to improve teacher distribution in educational systems. The geographic impact was focused on New Jersey, suggesting a localized study or pilot program. Workforce implications could include insights into teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development strategies.

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 long duration of the contract (nearly 8 years) might indicate potential scope creep or a lack of clear, achievable milestones.
Limited competition (2 offers) could mean less pressure on the contractor to offer the most competitive pricing.
The specific evaluation methodology and its rigor are not detailed, making it hard to assess the quality of the research.
The contract was awarded in 2007, and its relevance and findings may be dated depending on the current educational landscape.

Positive Signals

The contract was competitively awarded, suggesting some level of market vetting.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure aims to incentivize contractor performance and achieve desired outcomes.
The focus on evaluating high-performing teachers addresses a critical issue in education.
The contract was managed by the Department of Education, a relevant agency for this type of research.
The study was conducted in New Jersey, allowing for focused analysis within a specific state context.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Educational Support Services sector, specifically focusing on research and evaluation related to educational personnel. The market for educational research and evaluation is diverse, involving academic institutions, private research firms, and non-profit organizations. Spending in this area is often driven by federal and state initiatives aimed at improving educational outcomes, teacher quality, and system efficiency. Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without more specific details on the scope of work and deliverables, but its duration and value suggest a significant research undertaking.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides or significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The contractor, Mathematica Inc., is a large research firm. The nature of the work, requiring specialized research and evaluation expertise, may not lend itself easily to small business participation unless specific components were outsourced.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been provided by the Department of Education. As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, performance monitoring and the determination of award fees would be key oversight activities. Transparency regarding the evaluation methodology, interim reports, and final findings would be expected. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants
Teacher Incentive Fund
Education Research and Development Centers
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may indicate potential for scope creep.
Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require diligent oversight to ensure value for money.
Limited number of bidders could impact price competitiveness.
Evaluation findings are not publicly detailed in the provided data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $11.7 million to MATHEMATICA INC.. EVALUATION OF MOVING HIGH PERFORMING TEACHERS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MATHEMATICA INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-10. End: 2015-06-30.

What were the specific evaluation metrics and methodologies used by Mathematica Inc. to assess the impact of moving high-performing teachers?

The provided data does not detail the specific evaluation metrics or methodologies employed. However, typical approaches for such studies might include analyzing student test score gains, tracking teacher retention rates in high-need schools, examining classroom observation data, and surveying teachers and administrators. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies that Mathematica would have proposed specific performance objectives and metrics, and their success in meeting these would determine the award fee. A comprehensive final report would likely outline these details, but such a report is not included in the provided data.

How does the $11.7 million cost compare to similar large-scale educational evaluation contracts?

Direct comparison is challenging without knowing the exact scope, duration, and deliverables of other contracts. However, $11.7 million over nearly eight years for a multi-faceted evaluation study is within the range for significant federal research grants. For context, large-scale program evaluations funded by agencies like the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) can range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars, depending on complexity and scale. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests an effort to manage costs against performance, which is a common practice for complex research projects.

What were the key findings or outcomes of this evaluation regarding teacher mobility?

The provided data focuses on the contract's administrative details (value, contractor, dates, type) and does not include the findings or outcomes of the evaluation itself. To understand the impact of moving high-performing teachers to high-need schools in New Jersey, one would need to access the final reports or publications resulting from this contract. These reports would detail whether the strategy was effective, under what conditions, and provide recommendations for policy and practice.

What is Mathematica Inc.'s track record in conducting educational research and evaluations for the federal government?

Mathematica Inc. is a well-established research firm with extensive experience conducting evaluations and research for federal agencies, including the Department of Education. They have a long history of working on complex social policy issues, including education. Their portfolio typically includes studies on student achievement, teacher effectiveness, school finance, and educational technology. While this specific contract's success is not detailed here, Mathematica's general reputation and history suggest they possess the capacity and expertise for such large-scale evaluation projects.

Were there any identified risks or challenges during the performance of this contract, and how were they addressed?

The provided data does not specify any risks or challenges encountered during the contract's performance. However, for a contract of this duration and nature, potential risks could include difficulties in data collection, changes in educational policy or context affecting the study's relevance, contractor performance issues, or budget overruns. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure is designed to mitigate performance risks by linking compensation to outcomes. The Department of Education's contracting officers would have been responsible for monitoring progress and addressing any issues that arose.

How has federal spending on educational support services, particularly for research and evaluation, evolved since this contract was awarded in 2007?

Federal spending on educational support services, including research and evaluation, has fluctuated since 2007, influenced by economic conditions, administration priorities, and legislative changes. Following the 2008 recession, stimulus funding (e.g., through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) temporarily increased education spending. More recently, priorities have shifted towards areas like early childhood education, STEM, and addressing educational inequities. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) remains a primary source of federal funding for rigorous education research, with annual appropriations varying based on congressional decisions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Educational Support Services › Educational Support Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Mathematica Inc (UEI: 154125140)

Address: 600 ALEXANDER PARK, PRINCETON, NJ, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,682,525

Exercised Options: $11,682,525

Current Obligation: $11,682,525

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: EDED04CO0112

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline