Ohio KEPRO, LLC awarded $25.9M contract for quality improvement services in Ohio

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,898,606 ($25.9M)

Contractor: Ohio Kepro, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2008-02-08

End Date: 2009-04-30

Contract Duration: 447 days

Daily Burn Rate: $57.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: TAS::75 8005::TAS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION - SOW#8 - STATE OF OHIO

Place of Performance

Location: SEVEN HILLS, CUYAHOGA County, OHIO, 44131

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $25.9 million to OHIO KEPRO, LLC for work described as: TAS::75 8005::TAS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION - SOW#8 - STATE OF OHIO Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for a one-year engagement focused on quality improvement. 2. Limited competition may have impacted price discovery. 3. Contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) allows for flexibility but requires strong performance metrics. 4. This contract supports federal efforts to enhance healthcare quality in specific states. 5. The contractor has a history of performing similar services for government entities. 6. Geographic focus on Ohio aligns with the stated purpose of the contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $25.9 million for a 447-day period suggests a monthly cost of approximately $579,000. This figure needs to be benchmarked against similar quality improvement contracts administered by CMS or other federal agencies. Without direct comparable data, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) indicates that the contractor's fee is tied to performance, which can incentivize efficiency and effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when circumstances do not permit a competitive process. The lack of competition means that potential cost savings that might arise from a bidding process were not realized. It is important to understand the justification for the sole-source award to ensure it was appropriate.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers compared to competitively bid contracts, as the government does not benefit from the price pressures of multiple bidders.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include Medicare and Medicaid recipients in Ohio who will receive improved healthcare quality. Services delivered focus on quality improvement initiatives within the state's healthcare system. Geographic impact is concentrated within the state of Ohio. Workforce implications may include the employment of healthcare professionals and administrative staff by Ohio KEPRO, LLC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition could lead to higher costs.
Performance metrics for the award fee need rigorous oversight.
Sole-source justification requires thorough review to ensure necessity.

Positive Signals

Contract aims to improve healthcare quality, a key federal objective.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance.
Focus on a specific state allows for targeted quality improvement efforts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Healthcare sector, specifically focusing on health administration and quality improvement services. The market for such services is substantial, with government agencies like CMS being major purchasers. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other contracts for Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) or similar entities that provide oversight and improvement services to Medicare and Medicaid programs across different states.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As a sole-source award, it is less likely to have been structured to specifically benefit small businesses. Further investigation into the contract's terms would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were mandated or voluntarily pursued by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Accountability measures are likely embedded within the Cost Plus Award Fee structure, where the contractor's performance against defined metrics determines a portion of their payment. Transparency would depend on the public availability of performance reports and the justification for the sole-source award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs)
Medicare Quality Improvement Programs
Medicaid Quality Improvement Initiatives
Healthcare Administration Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pressure.
Performance metrics for award fee require robust oversight.
Contract duration is relatively short (447 days).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $25.9 million to OHIO KEPRO, LLC. TAS::75 8005::TAS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION - SOW#8 - STATE OF OHIO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is OHIO KEPRO, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-08. End: 2009-04-30.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to Ohio KEPRO, LLC?

The justification for a sole-source award typically stems from unique capabilities, specialized knowledge, or urgent needs that cannot be met through a competitive process. For this contract, the specific reason for sole-sourcing to Ohio KEPRO, LLC would need to be detailed in official government documentation, such as a Justification and Approval (J&A) document. Without access to this specific J&A, we can only speculate that it might relate to the contractor's established expertise, prior performance in the region, or a specific program requirement that only they could fulfill at the time of award. Understanding this justification is crucial for assessing the appropriateness of the procurement method and its potential impact on cost and competition.

How does the performance of Ohio KEPRO, LLC on this contract compare to other Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) in similar states?

Direct comparison of Ohio KEPRO, LLC's performance on this specific contract to other QIOs in similar states is challenging without access to detailed performance metrics and evaluation reports. The contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, implying that performance was evaluated against specific criteria to determine award fees. To conduct a thorough comparison, one would need to analyze these performance evaluations, looking at metrics related to healthcare quality improvements achieved, cost-efficiency, stakeholder satisfaction (e.g., providers, beneficiaries), and adherence to program goals. Benchmarking against other QIOs would involve identifying contracts with similar scopes of work, geographic areas, and contract values, and then comparing their documented outcomes and award fee distributions, if publicly available.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for Ohio KEPRO, LLC under this contract?

The key performance indicators (KPIs) for determining the award fee under a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are typically outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Objectives (SOO). For a contract focused on quality improvement in Ohio, these KPIs likely included measures related to improving patient safety, reducing healthcare-associated infections, enhancing chronic disease management, increasing the adoption of health information technology, and improving beneficiary satisfaction. Specific metrics might involve rates of specific medical procedures, patient outcome data, or the successful implementation of quality improvement projects. The government would evaluate the contractor's achievement against these KPIs, with higher performance leading to a larger award fee, up to the maximum specified in the contract.

What is the historical spending trend for quality improvement services in Ohio by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Analyzing historical spending trends for quality improvement services in Ohio by CMS requires access to federal procurement data over multiple fiscal years. This contract, awarded in 2008 for services through April 2009, represents a snapshot in time. To understand the trend, one would need to examine prior and subsequent contracts awarded to Ohio KEPRO, LLC or other entities for similar services within Ohio. This would involve looking at the total dollar amounts, contract durations, and the specific services procured. Trends could indicate an increase or decrease in investment in quality improvement initiatives in the state, potential shifts in contracting strategies (e.g., from sole-source to competitive), or changes in the scope of services required by CMS.

What is the potential risk associated with the sole-source nature of this contract regarding contractor accountability?

The primary risk associated with the sole-source nature of this contract is reduced accountability stemming from the lack of competitive pressure. When a contract is competed, multiple bidders vie for the award, often leading to more favorable terms, innovative solutions, and competitive pricing. In a sole-source scenario, the government relies heavily on the contractor's willingness to perform diligently and ethically, as there are fewer external market forces compelling them to do so. Accountability is then primarily driven by the contract's performance metrics, oversight mechanisms, and the potential for future contract awards. If these oversight mechanisms are weak or the performance metrics are not rigorously enforced, a sole-source contractor may have less incentive to exceed expectations or control costs effectively, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes or higher-than-necessary expenditures.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Administration of Human Resource Programs › Administration of Public Health Programs

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICES › DEPENDENT MEDICARE SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Keystone Peer Review Organization, LLC

Address: 5700 LOMBARDO CTR STE 100, CLEVELAND, OH, 44131

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,898,606

Exercised Options: $25,898,606

Current Obligation: $25,898,606

Actual Outlays: $236,874

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline