HHS awarded $22.3M for MIHOPE 2 data collection and analysis to MDRC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,329,545 ($22.3M)

Contractor: Mdrc

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2013-02-06

End Date: 2021-03-09

Contract Duration: 2,953 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF MIHOPE 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ON THE MOTHER AND INFANTS HOME VISITING PROGRAM EVALUATION

Place of Performance

Location: NEW YORK, NEW YORK County, NEW YORK, 10016

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $22.3 million to MDRC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF MIHOPE 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ON THE MOTHER AND INFANTS HOME VISITING PROGRAM EVALUATION Key points: 1. Contract awarded to MDRC for comprehensive data collection and analysis related to the Mother and Infants Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE 2). 2. The contract duration spans from February 2013 to March 2021, indicating a long-term commitment to program evaluation. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which allows for reimbursement of costs plus a fixed fee for profit. 4. The award was made under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources', suggesting a specific justification for limiting the initial competition. 5. The primary service area is Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. 6. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, implying it is part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar framework. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, indicating it was competed broadly or awarded to a large business.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $22.3 million over approximately 8 years for a program evaluation is within a reasonable range for such extensive data collection and analysis. Benchmarking against similar large-scale program evaluations by federal agencies would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if not carefully managed, as it covers costs plus a profit margin. However, for complex research and evaluation, it can be appropriate to ensure the contractor is not penalized for unforeseen difficulties.

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 typically means that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded for specific reasons, or it might refer to a specific type of competitive process that is not entirely 'full and open' in the traditional sense. Further clarification on the specific exclusion of sources would be needed to fully assess the competitive landscape. The fact that it was competed suggests that multiple entities were considered, but the exclusion clause warrants scrutiny.

Taxpayer Impact: The 'exclusion of sources' aspect of the competition could potentially limit price discovery and may not have resulted in the most competitive pricing for taxpayers. Understanding the rationale behind the exclusion is crucial to determine if it was justified and if it impacted the final award price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are mothers and infants participating in or eligible for the Mother and Infants Home Visiting Program. The services delivered include extensive data collection, analysis, and reporting to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the home visiting program. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, as the Mother and Infants Home Visiting Program is a federal initiative. The contract supports a workforce of researchers, data analysts, and program evaluators, contributing to the professional services sector. The findings from this evaluation will inform future policy decisions and program improvements for maternal and child health initiatives. The evaluation aims to provide evidence-based insights into the efficacy of home visiting services for vulnerable populations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation requires further investigation to understand the implications for competition and potential cost savings.
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type, while suitable for research, necessitates robust oversight to manage costs effectively and prevent overruns.
The long contract duration (2013-2021) means that initial pricing and scope may not reflect current market conditions or evolving program needs without adjustments.

Positive Signals

The award to MDRC, a known research organization, suggests a focus on expertise and quality in program evaluation.
The comprehensive nature of the data collection and analysis indicates a commitment to evidence-based policymaking.
The long-term engagement allows for in-depth understanding and tracking of program outcomes over time.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically management and general management consulting. The federal government frequently procures services for program evaluation and data analysis to inform policy and improve service delivery. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms specializing in research, data analytics, and public policy consulting. The size of this contract ($22.3M) is substantial for a single evaluation project, reflecting the complexity and scope of the MIHOPE 2 program.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract appears minimal unless MDRC engages small businesses as subcontractors, which is not specified.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), specifically the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, which awarded the contract. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs incurred and the fixed fee earned. Performance reviews, regular reporting, and potentially site visits would be standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency would be enhanced through public reporting of evaluation findings, though the specific oversight details and Inspector General jurisdiction for this particular award are not detailed in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Mother and Infants Home Visiting Program (MIHO)
Maternal and Child Health Programs
Federal Program Evaluation Services
Health Services Research
Data Collection and Analysis Contracts

Risk Flags

Competition Limitation
Cost Control Risk (CPFF)
Potential for Outdated Evaluation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $22.3 million to MDRC. IGF::OT::IGF MIHOPE 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ON THE MOTHER AND INFANTS HOME VISITING PROGRAM EVALUATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MDRC.

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 $22.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-02-06. End: 2021-03-09.

What is the track record of MDRC in managing large-scale federal program evaluations?

MDRC (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation) is a well-established and reputable non-profit organization with extensive experience in designing, implementing, and evaluating social and economic policy programs. They have a long history of conducting rigorous research for federal, state, and local governments, as well as private foundations. Their work often involves complex data collection, analysis, and impact evaluations, similar to the MIHOPE 2 project. MDRC is known for its commitment to evidence-based research and has a strong track record in areas such as workforce development, education, and family support. Their involvement in the MIHOPE 2 evaluation suggests a selection based on proven expertise in managing such large and critical government research initiatives.

How does the $22.3 million contract value compare to similar federal program evaluations?

The $22.3 million contract value for the MIHOPE 2 data collection and analysis, spanning approximately eight years, is substantial but not unusual for large-scale, long-term federal program evaluations. The cost reflects the complexity of evaluating a national program like MIHOPE, which likely involves multiple sites, diverse populations, and extensive data collection methodologies (surveys, interviews, administrative data). Comparable federal evaluations of major health or social programs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on scope, duration, and the depth of analysis required. For instance, evaluations of large healthcare initiatives or broad social safety net programs often exceed this figure. The cost per year averages around $2.8 million, which is in line with the operational costs for significant research projects requiring dedicated teams of analysts and data collectors.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for program evaluation?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for program evaluation revolve around cost control and potential for contractor inefficiency. While CPFF is often used for research and development where the scope may evolve or unforeseen challenges arise, it shifts some of the financial risk to the government. The government agrees to reimburse the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. If the contractor's costs are higher than anticipated, the government pays more. There's a risk that the contractor might not be as incentivized to control costs as they would be under a fixed-price contract, as their profit is fixed regardless of the actual costs incurred. Robust government oversight, clear performance metrics, and detailed cost tracking are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation imply for this contract?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' is somewhat unusual and requires careful interpretation. Typically, 'full and open competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit offers. 'Exclusion of Sources' implies that specific potential sources were deliberately not considered or were excluded from the bidding process. This could occur for various reasons, such as national security, specific technical requirements that only a few sources can meet, or if the contract is a follow-on to a previous effort where only certain contractors possess the necessary knowledge. However, if not properly justified, excluding sources can limit competition, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced innovation. For this MIHOPE 2 contract, it suggests that while a competitive process was intended, there were specific reasons to exclude certain entities from bidding, the justification for which would be critical to assess the fairness and effectiveness of the competition.

How might the long duration of this contract (2013-2021) impact the evaluation's relevance and cost-effectiveness?

A long contract duration, such as the eight years for the MIHOPE 2 evaluation, can have both positive and negative implications. Positively, it allows for a comprehensive, longitudinal assessment of the program's impact, capturing changes over time and providing deeper insights than a shorter study. This extended period can be crucial for evaluating programs that require time to demonstrate effects. However, a long duration also increases the risk of the evaluation becoming outdated if program goals, methodologies, or the external environment change significantly. It can also lead to higher overall costs. Cost-effectiveness depends on whether the extended data collection and analysis yield proportionally greater value in terms of actionable insights and program improvement recommendations. Regular reviews and potential scope adjustments would be necessary to ensure the evaluation remains relevant and efficient throughout its lifecycle.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded as a Delivery Order?

The fact that this contract was awarded as a 'Delivery Order' suggests it is likely a task order issued under a larger Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar master agreement. IDIQs are commonly used by federal agencies to procure a broad range of supplies or services over a period of time. They allow agencies to issue specific orders (delivery orders for supplies, task orders for services) as needed, up to a certain ceiling amount. Awarding this as a delivery order implies that the underlying IDIQ contract was already in place, and this order represents a specific need for MIHOPE 2 data collection and analysis. This approach can streamline procurement for recurring needs and allows for flexibility in ordering services as requirements arise, but the competition for the initial IDIQ contract is key to understanding the overall competitive landscape.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 16 E 34TH ST FL 19, NEW YORK, NY, 10016

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,898,156

Exercised Options: $22,329,545

Current Obligation: $22,329,545

Actual Outlays: $-735

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HHSP23320095644WC

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline