HHS awarded $21.7M for public health programs, with a fixed-price award fee structure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $21,675,923 ($21.7M)
Contractor: Comagine Health
Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Start Date: 2008-02-16
End Date: 2008-07-31
Contract Duration: 166 days
Daily Burn Rate: $130.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: TAS::75 0511::TAS
Place of Performance
Location: SEATTLE, KING County, WASHINGTON, 98133
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Health and Human Services obligated $21.7 million to COMAGINE HEALTH for work described as: TAS::75 0511::TAS Key points: 1. The contract utilized a fixed-price award fee structure, aiming to incentivize performance while managing costs. 2. Competition was open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a potentially limited but justified bidding process. 3. The contract duration was relatively short at 166 days, indicating a focused scope of work. 4. The award was made to COMAGINE HEALTH, a single contractor. 5. The contract falls under the Administration of Public Health Programs, a critical area for the agency. 6. The contract's value of $21.7 million is a significant investment in public health initiatives.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's fixed-price award fee structure suggests an attempt to balance cost control with performance incentives. Without detailed performance metrics and award fee payouts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar public health program administration contracts would be necessary to determine if the $21.7 million represents a competitive price for the services rendered over the 166-day period. The absence of extensive competition might also influence pricing.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This designation implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the number of bidders. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes be used when specific capabilities or prior relationships are deemed essential. The limited nature of the competition could impact price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have received less competitive pricing due to the exclusion of certain potential bidders. Further justification for the source exclusion is needed to ensure full value.
Public Impact
Beneficiaries include the general public through improved public health program administration. Services delivered likely involve the management and oversight of public health initiatives. The geographic impact is likely national, given the scope of federal public health programs. Workforce implications could involve federal employees managing the contract and potentially contractor personnel supporting the administration.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition raises concerns about optimal price discovery and potential for higher costs.
- The 'after exclusion of sources' clause requires further scrutiny to understand the rationale and impact on fairness.
- Short contract duration might indicate a project-specific need rather than long-term program support, requiring careful planning for continuity.
Positive Signals
- The fixed-price award fee structure is a positive mechanism for incentivizing contractor performance.
- Awarding to a single contractor for administration of public health programs can lead to focused expertise and streamlined execution.
- The contract falls under a critical functional area (Administration of Public Health Programs) indicating alignment with agency mission.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector, specifically focusing on public administration. The market for such services is vast, encompassing a wide range of government support functions. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for program administration, policy support, and management consulting within federal health agencies. The $21.7 million award is a substantial sum for a 166-day engagement, suggesting a high level of complexity or specialized expertise required.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary focus or requirement for this specific contract. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the contract was likely awarded based on specialized capabilities rather than a mandate to engage small businesses, which could limit opportunities for the small business ecosystem in this particular instance.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within HHS. Accountability measures are embedded in the fixed-price award fee structure, which links payment to performance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's execution.
Related Government Programs
- Public Health Infrastructure Grants
- Health Information Technology Services
- Disease Prevention and Control Programs
- Healthcare Policy and Regulation
Risk Flags
- Limited competition due to source exclusion.
- Potential for cost overruns if award fee targets are not well-defined or achieved.
- Lack of transparency regarding specific program administration details and KPIs.
Tags
hhs, centers-for-medicare-and-medicaid-services, administration-of-public-health-programs, definitive-contract, fixed-price-award-fee, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, comagine-health, washington, federal-health, program-administration
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Health and Human Services awarded $21.7 million to COMAGINE HEALTH. TAS::75 0511::TAS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is COMAGINE HEALTH.
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 $21.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-02-16. End: 2008-07-31.
What specific public health programs were administered under this contract, and what were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee?
The provided data does not specify the exact public health programs administered under this contract, nor does it detail the key performance indicators (KPIs) used for the award fee. Typically, contracts for 'Administration of Public Health Programs' involve tasks such as program planning, implementation support, data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and reporting. The award fee mechanism suggests that specific, measurable objectives were set, and the contractor's achievement against these objectives directly influenced the final payment. To understand the KPIs, one would need to review the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and the award fee plan, which are usually detailed in the contract's official documentation. These KPIs would likely align with the agency's strategic goals for the specific public health initiatives being supported.
Can the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method be further explained, and what was the justification provided?
The contract's competition method, 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicates that while the competition was intended to be open to all responsible sources, certain potential bidders were excluded. The justification for such exclusions typically stems from specific requirements that only a limited number of contractors can meet, such as unique technical capabilities, proprietary knowledge, or urgent needs where only pre-qualified vendors are viable. Without access to the contract file or justification documents, the precise reasons for excluding other sources remain unknown. This method can sometimes be a precursor to a sole-source award if only one source ultimately meets the criteria after exclusions, or it can still result in competition among a reduced pool of bidders. Understanding the rationale is crucial for assessing whether the exclusion was necessary and did not unduly restrict competition.
How does the $21.7 million award for a 166-day contract compare to typical spending for similar public health program administration services?
The award of $21.7 million for a 166-day contract (approximately 5.5 months) for public health program administration is substantial on a pro-rata basis. This equates to an average monthly expenditure of roughly $3.9 million. To assess if this is competitive, it needs to be benchmarked against similar contracts awarded by HHS or other federal agencies for comparable services. Factors influencing this cost include the complexity of the programs administered, the level of expertise required, the scope of work (e.g., data analysis, policy development, stakeholder management), and the specific performance expectations tied to the award fee. If the services involved highly specialized technical expertise or managed large-scale public health initiatives with significant operational components, the cost might be justified. However, without detailed scope and performance data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represents optimal value for money compared to market rates for similar services.
What is the track record of COMAGINE HEALTH in administering federal public health programs, particularly with HHS?
Information regarding COMAGINE HEALTH's specific track record in administering federal public health programs, especially with HHS, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history, and any publicly available reports or awards associated with the company. Federal procurement databases and agency performance management systems often contain such information. Understanding their experience with similar contracts, their ability to meet performance targets, and their history of managing federal funds would be crucial for evaluating their suitability and reliability as a contractor for this significant award. Without this historical context, it's challenging to gauge their proven capability in this domain.
What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price award fee contract structure in the context of public health program administration?
Fixed-price award fee contracts, while aiming to balance cost control with performance incentives, carry inherent risks. For the government, a key risk is that the contractor might prioritize achieving the award fee targets over other critical, non-incentivized aspects of performance, potentially leading to a narrow focus. Conversely, if the award fee criteria are poorly defined or too easily met, the incentive may be weak, and the government might end up paying a premium without commensurate performance gains. For the contractor, the risk lies in not meeting the award fee criteria, thus reducing their overall profit. In public health program administration, where outcomes can be complex and influenced by external factors, setting objective and measurable award fee criteria can be challenging. This could lead to disputes over performance evaluations or a misalignment of efforts.
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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE AWARD FEE (M)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 10700 MERIDIAN AVE N STE 100, SEATTLE, WA, 98133
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $21,675,923
Exercised Options: $21,675,923
Current Obligation: $21,675,923
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-02-16
Current End Date: 2008-07-31
Potential End Date: 2008-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-12-14
More Contracts from Comagine Health
- Quality Innovation Network/Quality Improvement Organizations (qin-Qio) Task Order — $44.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- C.1 Statement of Work Independently and NOT AS an Agent of the Government, the Contractor Shall Furnish ALL the Necessary Personnel, Materials, Services, Equipment, and Facilities, NOT Otherwise Provided by the Government, AS Needed to Perform the S — $44.6M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- American Indian/Alaska Native Healthcare Quality Initiative (aihqi)igf::ct::igf — $18.2M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) for the State of WA — $14.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- OR State Task Order Igf::ct::igf — $11.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
Other Department of Health and Human Services Contracts
- Contact Center Operations (CCO) — $5.5B (Maximus Federal Services, Inc.)
- TAS::75 0849::TAS Oper of Govt R&D Goco Facilities — $4.8B (Leidos Biomedical Research Inc)
- THE Purpose of This Contract IS to Provide the Full Complement of Services Necessary to Care for UC in ORR Custody Including Facilities Set-Up, Maintenance, and Support Internal and Perimeter (IF Applicable) Security, Direct Care and Supervision Inc — $3.5B (Rapid Deployment Inc)
- Contact Center Operations — $2.6B (Maximus Federal Services, Inc.)
- Federal Contract — $2.4B (Leidos Biomedical Research Inc)
View all Department of Health and Human Services contracts →