Department of Education awarded $1.82 billion to Mathematica Inc. for educational support services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,245,657 ($18.2M)

Contractor: Mathematica Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2010-09-24

End Date: 2018-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,928 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IMPACT EVALUATION OF RACE TO THE TOP (RTT) AND TITLE I STATE IMPROVEMENT (SIG) GRANT PROGRAMS

Place of Performance

Location: PRINCETON, SOMERSET County, NEW JERSEY, 08540

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $18.2 million to MATHEMATICA INC. for work described as: IMPACT EVALUATION OF RACE TO THE TOP (RTT) AND TITLE I STATE IMPROVEMENT (SIG) GRANT PROGRAMS Key points: 1. The contract's value of $1.82 billion over approximately 8 years suggests a significant investment in educational program evaluation. 2. Awarded via full and open competition, the contract likely benefited from a competitive bidding process. 3. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type introduces performance incentives, potentially driving efficiency and effectiveness. 4. The duration of nearly 8 years indicates a long-term commitment to the services provided. 5. The contract's focus on educational support services aligns with the Department of Education's mission. 6. The absence of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements may limit opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its large scale and specific focus on program evaluation. The $1.82 billion awarded over nearly 8 years averages to approximately $230 million annually. This figure needs to be assessed against the scope and complexity of the 'Race to the Top' and 'Title I State Improvement' grant programs being evaluated. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a direct value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the significant investment suggests a perceived high value in understanding the impact of these large federal education initiatives.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this substantial contract. This competitive process is generally expected to lead to more favorable pricing and better service offerings for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining the best value through a robust bidding process.

Public Impact

Educational institutions and state education agencies participating in the 'Race to the Top' and 'Title I State Improvement' programs are the primary beneficiaries, as the evaluation aims to improve their effectiveness. The services delivered include comprehensive impact evaluations of significant federal education grant programs. The geographic impact is national, covering all states and districts involved in the funded programs. The contract supports a workforce of researchers, analysts, and evaluators, primarily within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The large contract value and long duration could create vendor lock-in, making it difficult to switch providers if performance issues arise.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, while incentivizing performance, can sometimes lead to higher costs if award fees are consistently maximized without strict cost controls.
The lack of specific small business subcontracting requirements might limit the participation of smaller, specialized firms in this large-scale evaluation.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a broad range of potential contractors could compete.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes the contractor to achieve high performance standards.
The contract duration suggests a stable and long-term commitment to evaluating critical education programs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on educational research and evaluation. The market for large-scale government program evaluation is competitive, with a few established firms specializing in such work. The Department of Education is a significant buyer of these services, often contracting for program analysis and effectiveness studies. The scale of this contract is substantial, reflecting the importance and scope of the educational initiatives being evaluated.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have specific small business set-aside provisions, nor are there explicit mentions of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this large contract may be limited, potentially excluding them from a significant portion of the federal contracting ecosystem related to educational evaluation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Education's contracting officers and program officials. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance monitoring to determine award fee payouts. Transparency would depend on the public release of evaluation reports and data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Race to the Top Program
Title I State Improvement Grants
Federal Education Program Evaluation
Educational Research and Development
Government Contract Auditing

Risk Flags

Large contract value
Long contract duration
Cost Plus Award Fee structure
Lack of small business subcontracting requirements

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $18.2 million to MATHEMATICA INC.. IMPACT EVALUATION OF RACE TO THE TOP (RTT) AND TITLE I STATE IMPROVEMENT (SIG) GRANT PROGRAMS

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 $18.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-24. End: 2018-09-30.

What was Mathematica Inc.'s track record prior to receiving this contract?

Mathematica Inc. is a well-established research and data analytics firm with extensive experience in evaluating government programs, particularly in education and health. Prior to this contract, they had a history of securing large federal grants and contracts from agencies like the Department of Education, NIH, and CMS. Their expertise in program evaluation, survey design, and data analysis is widely recognized. This contract, valued at $1.82 billion, represents a significant award, but it aligns with their established capabilities and past performance in handling complex, large-scale evaluations for federal agencies.

How does the $1.82 billion award compare to similar federal contracts for program evaluation?

The $1.82 billion award for educational program evaluation is exceptionally large, even within the context of federal contracting. While large-scale evaluations are common, contracts of this magnitude are rare and typically reserved for the most comprehensive and long-term assessments of major national initiatives. Most program evaluation contracts are significantly smaller, often in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. This contract's size reflects the ambitious scope of the 'Race to the Top' and 'Title I State Improvement' programs it aims to evaluate, suggesting a deep governmental commitment to understanding their impact.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract of this size?

The primary risks with a CPAF contract of this magnitude include potential cost overruns if the base cost-plus component is not tightly managed, and the possibility of inflated award fees if performance metrics are not rigorously defined and assessed. There's also a risk that the focus on achieving award fee targets could inadvertently steer the evaluation towards certain outcomes or methodologies. For taxpayers, the risk lies in ensuring that the award fees genuinely reflect exceptional performance and value, rather than simply being an add-on to costs. Robust oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective has Mathematica Inc. been in delivering on similar large-scale federal evaluation contracts?

Assessing Mathematica Inc.'s effectiveness on similar large-scale contracts requires detailed review of past performance reports and independent audits, which are not fully available in this summary. However, as a long-standing contractor with numerous federal awards, it is implied that they have met performance expectations sufficiently to be awarded subsequent contracts. Their continued success in securing large, complex evaluations suggests a generally positive track record. Specific effectiveness metrics for this particular contract would be found in interim and final evaluation reports produced under the contract.

What is the historical spending trend for educational support services by the Department of Education?

The Department of Education consistently spends significant funds on educational support services, including research, evaluation, and technical assistance. Historical spending data would show fluctuations based on administration priorities, legislative initiatives (like 'Race to the Top'), and the lifecycle of major grant programs. While specific year-over-year trends require detailed analysis of budget appropriations and contract awards, the $1.82 billion awarded here indicates a substantial and sustained investment in understanding educational program efficacy, consistent with the department's mission to improve education outcomes.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (nearly 8 years) for program evaluation?

A nearly 8-year duration for an evaluation contract is substantial and allows for longitudinal analysis, tracking program effects over an extended period. This is particularly valuable for educational initiatives, where impacts may not be immediately apparent and can evolve over time. It enables the evaluation team to observe implementation fidelity, adaptation, and the sustained outcomes of the 'Race to the Top' and 'Title I State Improvement' programs. The long duration also implies a stable funding stream for the evaluation, potentially leading to deeper insights and more comprehensive findings than shorter-term studies.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: ED-IES-10-R-0074

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Mathematica Inc (UEI: 154125140)

Address: 600 ALEXANDER PARK, PRINCETON, NJ, 08540

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,245,657

Exercised Options: $18,245,657

Current Obligation: $18,245,657

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $2,398,041

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline