HHS awarded $42.9M for legal services, with VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC. as the primary contractor

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $42,930,233 ($42.9M)

Contractor: Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2015-09-30

End Date: 2021-03-29

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS REGION E

Place of Performance

Location: NEW YORK, NEW YORK County, NEW YORK, 10279

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $42.9 million to VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS REGION E Key points: 1. The contract value of $42.9 million over its period of performance suggests a significant need for legal services within the agency. 2. With two bidders, the competition level indicates moderate market interest but may not have driven the most aggressive pricing. 3. The contract's duration and fixed-price nature suggest a predictable cost structure, but potential for cost overruns exists if scope changes. 4. Performance context is limited without specific metrics on the legal services provided and their impact. 5. This contract falls within the 'All Other Legal Services' category, indicating a broad range of legal support was required. 6. The absence of small business set-asides means opportunities for smaller firms in this legal services domain were not prioritized.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $42.9 million for legal services over approximately six years (from September 2015 to March 2021) averages to about $7.15 million per year. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale legal service contracts is challenging without more specific details on the scope of services. However, the contract was awarded through full and open competition, which typically helps in achieving fair market prices. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty, but the overall value for money depends heavily on the effectiveness and efficiency of the legal services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. With two bidders identified, the level of competition was present but not extensive. A higher number of bidders often leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions. While two bidders suggest some market interest, it's possible that a more robust competition could have yielded better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, despite having only two bidders, aimed to ensure fair pricing. However, taxpayers may not have received the absolute lowest price achievable if more firms had participated and competed aggressively.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which received essential legal support. Services delivered likely encompassed a wide array of legal counsel, advice, and representation necessary for the agency's operations. The geographic impact is primarily centered around HHS operations, with potential implications for federal legal practices nationwide. Workforce implications include the engagement of legal professionals within the contractor organization, supporting federal legal functions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition with only two bidders could indicate potential for higher costs than a more competitive scenario.
The broad 'All Other Legal Services' category makes it difficult to assess if the most specialized and cost-effective legal expertise was secured.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it hard to evaluate the true value and effectiveness of the legal services provided.
The contract duration of over six years (including modifications) might have allowed for scope creep or less incentive for continuous efficiency improvements.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, adhering to principles of fair opportunity.
The contract utilized a firm fixed-price (FFP) type, which generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC., is a known entity, suggesting some level of established capability.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, simplifying administration and oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the broad professional services sector, specifically legal services. The federal government is a significant consumer of legal services, both for internal counsel and external support. The market for legal services is diverse, ranging from large law firms to specialized boutique practices and non-profit organizations. This contract's value of $42.9 million places it as a substantial award within the federal legal services procurement landscape. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against the average cost of similar legal support contracts awarded by agencies like HHS or other large federal departments.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in providing these legal services were not explicitly prioritized through this specific procurement vehicle. The focus was on full and open competition, which typically favors larger, more established firms capable of meeting extensive requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracting officers and program managers. As a definitive contract, it implies a level of established terms and conditions. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS-NG, where contract awards are recorded. However, specific details regarding ongoing performance monitoring, accountability measures, and whether an Inspector General has jurisdiction over this particular award are not explicitly provided in the summary data.

Related Government Programs

Legal Services Contracts
Professional Services Contracts
Department of Health and Human Services Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules (potential vehicle)
Department of Justice Legal Services

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Broad Service Category
Lack of Specific Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $42.9 million to VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS REGION E

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $42.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-30. End: 2021-03-29.

What specific types of legal services were provided under this contract?

The contract falls under the NAICS code 541199, 'All Other Legal Services.' This broad classification suggests that the services provided were diverse and not limited to a single specialty. It could encompass a wide range of legal support, including but not limited to regulatory compliance advice, litigation support, contract review, policy analysis, administrative law matters, and general legal counsel relevant to the operations of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Without more detailed contract documentation or performance reports, the precise breakdown of services rendered remains unspecified, but the significant award value implies a substantial and varied legal support requirement.

How does the $42.9 million award compare to typical federal spending on legal services?

The $42.9 million award for legal services by HHS is a significant sum, indicating a substantial requirement for external legal support over the contract's period. Federal agencies collectively spend billions annually on legal services, both through internal counsel and external contracts. While this specific award is large, it is not necessarily an outlier when considering the scale of HHS's operations and potential legal complexities. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to benchmark it against average contract values for similar legal services procured by large federal departments, considering factors like agency size, mission complexity, and the specific types of legal support sought. The fact that it was competed suggests an effort to achieve market-based pricing.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this size and duration?

Contracts of this magnitude ($42.9 million) and duration (over six years, including modifications) carry inherent risks. One primary risk is scope creep, where the services required may expand beyond the original intent, potentially leading to cost overruns if not managed carefully, despite the fixed-price nature. Another risk is contractor performance; if the VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC. fails to deliver high-quality legal services consistently, it could negatively impact HHS operations. Furthermore, with only two bidders, there's a risk that the government did not secure the most competitive pricing possible. Finally, the broad 'All Other Legal Services' category might obscure potential inefficiencies or a lack of specialized expertise for certain critical legal needs.

What was the track record of the contractor, VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC., prior to this award?

The provided data indicates VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INC. was the contractor for this $42.9 million HHS legal services contract. To assess their track record, one would typically examine their past performance on federal contracts, including client satisfaction, adherence to timelines, quality of deliverables, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Organizations like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and various Inspector General reports might contain relevant information. A positive track record with previous government contracts, especially with HHS or similar agencies, would suggest a lower risk profile for this award. Conversely, any past performance issues would raise concerns about the reliability and effectiveness of the contractor.

How effective was the competition process in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which is the preferred method for maximizing competition and achieving best value. However, only two bids were received. While this indicates some level of market interest, a higher number of bidders typically drives more aggressive pricing and fosters innovation. The effectiveness in ensuring value for taxpayers is therefore moderate. Taxpayers benefit from the competitive process ensuring that the selected contractor's price is justifiable against alternatives. However, the limited number of bidders suggests that potentially better pricing or more innovative solutions might have been available had more firms participated or been incentivized to bid.

What are the historical spending patterns for legal services at HHS?

Historical spending patterns for legal services at HHS are not detailed in the provided data snippet. To analyze this, one would need to examine HHS's procurement history over several fiscal years, looking at the total amount spent on legal services, the number and value of legal services contracts awarded, and the primary contractors utilized. This analysis would reveal trends, such as whether spending has increased or decreased, whether reliance on external legal support is growing, and if specific types of legal services are becoming more or less costly. Understanding these patterns provides context for the $42.9 million award and helps identify potential areas for cost savings or efficiency improvements in future procurements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Legal Services › All Other Legal Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 15233SOL00264

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 233 BROADWAY FL 12, NEW YORK, NY, 10279

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $42,930,233

Exercised Options: $42,930,233

Current Obligation: $42,930,233

Actual Outlays: $487,517

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 9

Total Subaward Amount: $6,249,623

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline