HHS awarded $16.5M for suicide prevention evaluation services to ICF Macro Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,543,960 ($16.5M)

Contractor: ICF Macro Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2009-09-09

End Date: 2014-09-29

Contract Duration: 1,846 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: SUICIDE PREVENTION EVALUATION

Place of Performance

Location: BELTSVILLE, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20705

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $16.5 million to ICF MACRO INC for work described as: SUICIDE PREVENTION EVALUATION Key points: 1. The contract's value of $16.5 million over five years suggests a significant investment in understanding and improving suicide prevention strategies. 2. ICF Macro Inc. was awarded this contract, indicating a reliance on established expertise in professional, scientific, and technical services. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, implying a robust process to ensure fair pricing and selection. 4. The Delivery Order contract type suggests a flexible approach to acquiring services as needed. 5. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes contractor performance by linking a portion of the fee to achieving specific award objectives. 6. The contract duration of 1846 days (approximately 5 years) points to a long-term commitment to the evaluation project.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $16.5 million for a five-year evaluation project appears reasonable, especially given the specialized nature of suicide prevention research. Without direct benchmarks for similar, large-scale suicide prevention evaluations, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the CPAF structure suggests an attempt to align costs with performance, potentially leading to better value if award objectives are met. The single award indicates a focused engagement with one contractor for this specific scope.

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. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a deliberate effort to maximize competition and ensure the government receives competitive proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and ensuring that the most capable contractor is selected at a fair price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals and communities at risk of suicide, as the evaluation aims to improve prevention programs. The services delivered include comprehensive evaluations of suicide prevention initiatives, likely involving data analysis, research, and reporting. The geographic impact is likely national, given the scope of federal suicide prevention efforts, though specific program sites may vary. Workforce implications could include the need for specialized researchers, data analysts, and public health professionals within the contractor's organization and potentially within government oversight roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, while incentivizing performance, can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if not carefully managed and if award criteria are too broad.
The lack of specific details on the evaluation metrics makes it difficult to assess the true effectiveness and value derived from the $16.5 million investment.
The long contract duration could present risks if program needs or best practices evolve significantly over the five-year period, potentially leading to outdated methodologies.

Positive Signals

The award to ICF Macro Inc. suggests a contractor with established expertise in professional, scientific, and technical services, likely bringing valuable experience to the project.
The use of full and open competition indicates a commitment to a fair and transparent procurement process, aiming for the best value.
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, when well-defined, can align contractor incentives with government objectives, potentially leading to high-quality outcomes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector, specifically under the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code (541990). This broad category encompasses a wide range of specialized services. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering expertise in research, evaluation, and consulting. Federal spending in this area is substantial, supporting a variety of government functions from policy analysis to program implementation and oversight. This contract represents a specific investment in public health research and evaluation.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). As a large contract awarded under full and open competition, it is possible that small businesses could participate as subcontractors to ICF Macro Inc. However, without specific subcontracting plans or reporting, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. The primary focus appears to be on securing specialized expertise from a prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, oversight would involve rigorous monitoring of performance against defined award objectives and cost controls. Transparency would be facilitated through regular reporting requirements from the contractor. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is not detailed, the HHS IG typically has oversight over departmental spending and programs, including evaluations of this nature.

Related Government Programs

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Programs
Federal Mental Health Services
Public Health Research and Evaluation Contracts

Risk Flags

Contract duration may exceed evolving best practices.
Potential for cost creep in CPAF structure without rigorous oversight.
Data sensitivity and ethical handling are critical.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $16.5 million to ICF MACRO INC. SUICIDE PREVENTION EVALUATION

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 $16.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-09. End: 2014-09-29.

What is the track record of ICF Macro Inc. in performing similar federal evaluation contracts, particularly in the public health or mental health domain?

ICF Macro Inc. (now part of ICF International) has a significant history of performing federal contracts, including numerous evaluations and research projects within the public health and mental health sectors. They have been involved in large-scale studies for agencies like HHS, CDC, and NIH. Their expertise often spans program evaluation, data analysis, survey research, and technical assistance. For instance, they have conducted evaluations for initiatives related to substance abuse, chronic diseases, and health disparities. This experience suggests a strong capability to manage complex evaluation projects like the suicide prevention study, providing a foundation of relevant knowledge and established methodologies. Their long-standing presence in the federal contracting space indicates a familiarity with government requirements and reporting standards.

How does the awarded amount of $16.5 million compare to other federal contracts for similar suicide prevention or mental health program evaluations?

Comparing the $16.5 million award for a five-year suicide prevention evaluation to other federal contracts requires access to comprehensive contract databases and specific definitions of 'similar' work. However, large-scale, multi-year program evaluations for federal agencies often range from several million to tens of millions of dollars. Factors influencing cost include the scope of work (e.g., number of programs evaluated, geographic reach, data collection methods), the duration of the contract, and the complexity of the research questions. Given that this contract involves a national scope and a five-year timeframe for a critical public health issue, the $16.5 million figure appears to be within a plausible range for a significant federal evaluation effort. It suggests a substantial commitment to understanding and improving suicide prevention strategies.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or award objectives that ICF Macro Inc. must meet under the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure for this contract?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or award objectives for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, for a suicide prevention evaluation, typical objectives would likely focus on the quality and rigor of the evaluation methodology, the timeliness of deliverables (reports, data analysis), the accuracy and completeness of data collection, the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement, and the utility of the findings for informing policy and program improvements. The 'award fee' portion of the contract is contingent upon the government's assessment of ICF Macro Inc.'s performance against these predefined criteria. A robust CPAF structure would clearly define these objectives and the metrics used to evaluate performance, ensuring that the contractor is incentivized to achieve high-quality results that directly benefit the suicide prevention efforts.

What is the historical spending trend for suicide prevention evaluation services by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or SAMHSA?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for suicide prevention evaluation services by HHS or SAMHSA requires access to detailed historical contract data. While this specific $16.5 million contract represents a significant single award, understanding the broader trend would involve examining annual spending on similar services over several fiscal years. Factors such as shifts in public health priorities, legislative mandates, and the availability of funding can influence spending patterns. It is plausible that federal investment in mental health and suicide prevention has seen fluctuations, potentially increasing in response to rising public health concerns or specific national initiatives. A comprehensive analysis would reveal whether this contract represents a continuation of established funding levels, an increase, or a new focus area for SAMHSA's evaluation efforts.

What are the potential risks associated with a five-year Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for a sensitive area like suicide prevention?

A five-year Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for suicide prevention evaluation carries several potential risks. Firstly, the CPAF structure, while incentivizing performance, can lead to cost overruns if award criteria are not tightly defined or if the government's oversight is insufficient, potentially increasing the overall cost to taxpayers. Secondly, the long duration (five years) increases the risk of the evaluation methodologies becoming outdated or misaligned with evolving best practices in suicide prevention research and intervention. Programmatic shifts or new scientific discoveries during the contract period might not be adequately captured or addressed. Thirdly, ensuring the sensitivity and ethical handling of data related to suicide is paramount; any breaches or mishandling could have severe consequences. Finally, maintaining consistent government oversight and engagement over a five-year period can be challenging due to personnel changes or shifting agency priorities.

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: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Address: 11785 BLTSVLLE DR STE 300, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,693,401

Exercised Options: $16,543,960

Current Obligation: $16,543,960

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HHSS283200700007I

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline