HHS awarded $13.1M for national evaluation of 17 sites for CMHIRFTOP NO. 280-08-0229REFERENCE NO.HHSS28320070700

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,130,996 ($13.1M)

Contractor: ICF Macro Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2008-09-30

End Date: 2013-09-29

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: OTHER (NONE OF THE ABOVE)

Sector: Other

Official Description: NATIONAL EVALUATION OF 17 SITES AWARDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CMHIRFTOP NO. 280-08-0229REFERENCE NO.HHSS28320070700

Place of Performance

Location: BELTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGE'S County, MARYLAND, 20705

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $13.1 million to ICF MACRO INC for work described as: NATIONAL EVALUATION OF 17 SITES AWARDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CMHIRFTOP NO. 280-08-0229REFERENCE NO.HHSS28320070700 Key points: 1. The contract value of $13.1 million over 5 years suggests a significant investment in evaluating public health initiatives. 2. The award to ICF MACRO INC indicates a focus on specialized professional, scientific, and technical services. 3. The contract duration of 1825 days (5 years) allows for comprehensive data collection and analysis. 4. The 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code points to a broad scope of work. 5. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates the primary contractor is likely not a small business, with potential subcontracting opportunities. 7. The contract's geographic scope is national, impacting multiple sites across the United States. 8. The performance period suggests a long-term commitment to understanding the effectiveness of the evaluated programs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $13.1 million for a 5-year national evaluation appears reasonable given the scope of work. Benchmarking against similar large-scale program evaluations by HHS or other federal agencies would provide further context on value for money. The specific deliverables and the complexity of evaluating 17 sites suggest that the allocated funds are intended for in-depth research and analysis.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 2 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific contract. While more bidders could potentially drive down costs further, full and open competition generally ensures a fair process and access to a wide range of qualified contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best value for public funds. Full and open competition increases the likelihood that the government receives high-quality services at a fair price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and potentially the public health sector, through insights gained from the evaluation. The services delivered include comprehensive evaluation and analysis of 17 different sites participating in the CMHIRFTOP program. The geographic impact is national, as the evaluation covers multiple sites across the United States. Workforce implications may include employment for researchers, analysts, and support staff involved in the evaluation process, both at the prime contractor and potentially at the evaluated sites.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if the evaluation parameters are not strictly defined.
Reliance on contractor's methodology for data collection and analysis could introduce bias if not properly overseen.
The broad NAICS code might obscure the specific technical expertise required, necessitating careful vetting of the contractor's capabilities.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a fair and transparent procurement process.
A 5-year duration allows for thorough and longitudinal evaluation, leading to more robust findings.
The contract is with a known entity (ICF MACRO INC), suggesting a degree of established performance history.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector, specifically under the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' category. This sector is characterized by a wide range of specialized services, including research, consulting, and data analysis. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by government and private sector needs for expertise in program evaluation, policy analysis, and scientific research. This contract represents a significant investment in understanding the effectiveness of public health initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the 'sb' field is false. This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a large business, ICF MACRO INC. While there is no explicit small business set-aside, there may be opportunities for small businesses to subcontract with ICF MACRO INC to provide specialized services or support for the evaluation. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent to which ICF MACRO INC utilizes small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the awarding agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), a division of HHS. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance work statement, requiring regular progress reports, data submissions, and adherence to evaluation methodologies. Transparency is facilitated through the federal procurement process and the public availability of contract awards. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
Program Evaluation and Research
Public Health Research Grants

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Broad NAICS code may obscure specific expertise requirements
Potential for scope creep over a 5-year period

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $13.1 million to ICF MACRO INC. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF 17 SITES AWARDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CMHIRFTOP NO. 280-08-0229REFERENCE NO.HHSS28320070700

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ICF MACRO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-30. End: 2013-09-29.

What is the specific nature of the CMHIRFTOP program being evaluated?

The provided data does not specify the full name or objectives of the 'CMHIRFTOP NO. 280-08-0229REFERENCE NO.HHSS28320070700' program. However, given the awarding agency (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration - SAMHSA) and the NAICS code (All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services), it is highly probable that the program relates to substance abuse and mental health initiatives. The contract's purpose is to conduct a national evaluation of 17 sites involved in this program, likely to assess its effectiveness, reach, and impact. Further details on the program's goals and activities would be necessary for a complete understanding of the evaluation's context.

How does the $13.1 million contract value compare to similar large-scale program evaluations by HHS?

A direct comparison of the $13.1 million contract value for this 5-year national evaluation requires access to a database of similar HHS contracts. However, for large-scale, multi-site program evaluations conducted over several years, this figure appears to be within a reasonable range. Federal agencies often allocate significant resources to rigorously assess the impact and effectiveness of major public health programs. The cost per site, averaging approximately $772,411 over five years ($154,482 per year per site), suggests a substantial effort in data collection, analysis, and reporting across diverse locations. Without specific benchmarks for comparable evaluations, it's difficult to definitively state if it represents exceptional value, but it reflects a significant commitment to evidence-based policy.

What are the potential risks associated with a 5-year evaluation contract of this magnitude?

Several risks are associated with a 5-year evaluation contract of this magnitude. Firstly, there's the risk of 'scope creep,' where the evaluation's objectives or methodologies expand beyond the original agreement, potentially increasing costs and delaying timelines. Secondly, the long duration increases the possibility of changes in program priorities or leadership within SAMHSA, which could necessitate adjustments to the evaluation plan. Thirdly, maintaining consistent data quality and engagement from the 17 participating sites over five years can be challenging. Finally, the contractor's methodology and analytical rigor are critical; any flaws could lead to inaccurate conclusions, undermining the value of the entire investment. Robust oversight and clear communication channels are essential to mitigate these risks.

What does the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code imply about the contractor's required expertise?

The NAICS code 541990, 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' is a broad category that encompasses a wide array of specialized services not classified elsewhere. For this contract, it implies that ICF MACRO INC must possess expertise in areas such as program evaluation, research design, data collection (quantitative and qualitative), statistical analysis, report writing, and potentially subject matter expertise related to substance abuse and mental health. The 'all other' designation suggests the need for a versatile contractor capable of adapting to the specific, potentially unique, requirements of the CMHIRFTOP program evaluation, rather than fitting neatly into a more defined service category like market research or environmental consulting.

How might the 'full and open competition' with only two bidders impact the overall value for taxpayers?

While 'full and open competition' is generally favorable for taxpayers, having only two bidders for this $13.1 million contract presents a mixed picture. On one hand, the competition process itself ensures that at least two qualified entities vied for the work, preventing a sole-source situation. On the other hand, a limited number of bidders (two) might suggest that the market for such specialized, large-scale evaluations is relatively small, or that the contract's requirements were highly specific, potentially limiting the pool of interested and capable firms. This could mean less downward pressure on pricing than if there were numerous competitors. However, the government still benefits from the vetting process inherent in full and open competition, aiming to secure a competent contractor at a negotiated price.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar national program evaluations within HHS?

Historical spending patterns for similar national program evaluations within HHS can vary significantly based on the program's scope, duration, complexity, and the number of sites involved. Large-scale evaluations, especially those spanning multiple years and numerous sites like the CMHIRFTOP program, often represent multi-million dollar investments. Contracts for such evaluations can range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars. Factors influencing spending include the need for robust data collection methodologies (surveys, interviews, site visits), advanced statistical analysis, stakeholder engagement, and comprehensive reporting. Without access to specific historical contract data for comparable HHS evaluations, it's challenging to provide precise benchmarks, but the $13.1 million awarded here aligns with the typical investment required for significant national program assessments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical 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: 283071000

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: OTHER (NONE OF THE ABOVE) (3)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: ICF International, Inc. (UEI: 139001544)

Address: 11785 BLTSVLLE DR STE 300, BELTSVILLE, MD, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,130,996

Exercised Options: $13,130,996

Current Obligation: $13,130,996

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HHSS283200700007I

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline