NSF's $40.3M survey contract for doctorate recipients shows administrative management consulting services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,319,359 ($40.3M)

Contractor: National Opinion Research Center

Awarding Agency: National Science Foundation

Start Date: 2012-06-14

End Date: 2019-12-31

Contract Duration: 2,756 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF OTHER FUNCTIONS - SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS 2012 AND 2014 CYCLES

Place of Performance

Location: CHICAGO, COOK County, ILLINOIS, 60637

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Science Foundation obligated $40.3 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF OTHER FUNCTIONS - SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS 2012 AND 2014 CYCLES Key points: 1. Contract awarded for administrative management and general management consulting services. 2. The contract spans over 7 years, indicating a long-term need for data collection and analysis. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 4. The contract type is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery contract. 5. The use of Time and Materials pricing may introduce cost variability. 6. The contractor, National Opinion Research Center, has experience in survey research. 7. The geographic focus is Illinois, though the survey's scope is national.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $40.3 million over seven years for a survey of doctorate recipients appears reasonable for a large-scale, long-term data collection effort. Benchmarking against similar large-scale survey contracts is difficult without more specific details on the scope and methodology. However, the duration suggests a significant undertaking. The Time and Materials pricing structure warrants attention for potential cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and evaluated. This competitive process is generally expected to yield fair market pricing and encourage efficiency from the contractor. The presence of four bidders (no) suggests a healthy level of interest in this type of government contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down costs through market forces and ensures the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are researchers, policymakers, and educational institutions who rely on data about the doctorate recipient population. The services delivered include the design, administration, and analysis of surveys to gather information on doctorate recipients. The geographic impact is national, focusing on individuals who have received doctorates, regardless of their current location. Workforce implications include employment for survey administrators, data analysts, and research staff at the contracting organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost increases due to Time and Materials pricing.
Long contract duration may lead to scope creep if not managed carefully.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant period could limit future innovation.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Contractor has established experience in survey research.
Long-term nature of the contract allows for consistent data collection and trend analysis.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services sector (NAICS 541611). This sector encompasses a wide range of services aimed at improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The National Science Foundation's spending in this area is often related to research support, data collection, and program evaluation. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific nature and scale of the survey, but large-scale data collection and analysis contracts can range from millions to tens of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary focus was on securing the best overall proposal through open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in supporting this large federal initiative.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the National Science Foundation's contracting officers and program managers. The Inspector General's office for the NSF would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports are often internal.

Related Government Programs

National Survey of College Graduates
Survey of Earned Doctorates
American Community Survey
Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics

Risk Flags

Potential cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Long contract duration requires diligent oversight.
Scope definition and management are critical for success.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Science Foundation awarded $40.3 million to NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER. IGF::OT::IGF OTHER FUNCTIONS - SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS 2012 AND 2014 CYCLES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $40.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-06-14. End: 2019-12-31.

What is the historical spending trend for the Survey of Doctorate Recipients by the National Science Foundation?

Analyzing historical spending for the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) requires accessing past contract awards and modifications. The provided data covers a single contract award from 2012 to 2019 totaling $40.3 million. To understand trends, one would need to examine previous contract vehicles for the SDR, potentially going back several award cycles. This would involve looking at the total obligated amounts, the number of contracts awarded, and the average duration and value of these contracts. A trend analysis might reveal if spending has increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable over time, and whether the scope of the survey has expanded or contracted, influencing costs. Without access to historical contract databases beyond this single award, a comprehensive trend analysis is not possible.

How does the per-unit cost of surveying a doctorate recipient compare to similar government surveys?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for surveying a doctorate recipient is challenging with the provided data. The total contract value is $40.3 million, and the number of survey participants is not explicitly stated. To calculate a per-unit cost, we would need the total number of individuals surveyed or targeted over the contract's lifespan. Furthermore, 'per-unit cost' can be defined in various ways: cost per respondent, cost per survey administered, or cost per data point collected. Comparing this to other government surveys, such as those conducted by the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, would require a standardized definition of 'unit' and access to their respective cost data. Given the complexity of survey methodology, sampling, and data analysis, direct comparisons can be misleading without a detailed understanding of each survey's specific requirements and scope.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a contract like the Survey of Doctorate Recipients typically focus on data quality, timeliness, and survey response rates. Specific KPIs might include: 1) achieving a target response rate (e.g., 70% or higher) to ensure data representativeness; 2) delivering data analysis reports by specified deadlines; 3) maintaining data accuracy and minimizing errors through rigorous quality control measures; 4) ensuring the survey instrument effectively captures relevant information about doctorate recipients' career paths and demographics; and 5) managing the project within the allocated budget. While the contract details don't explicitly list these KPIs, they are standard for large-scale federal data collection efforts. Performance would be monitored through regular progress reports and potentially through government acceptance testing of deliverables.

What is the track record of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in managing large federal survey contracts?

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago has a long and established track record in conducting large-scale social science research and surveys for federal agencies. They are well-known for their work on major national surveys, including the General Social Survey (GSS), and have managed numerous contracts for agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Education. Their experience often includes complex sampling designs, data collection across diverse populations, and sophisticated statistical analysis. For the NSF specifically, NORC has historically been involved in surveys related to science and engineering workforce data. This particular contract, valued at over $40 million, aligns with their core competencies and past performance in managing substantial federal research initiatives.

What are the potential risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type for this survey?

The primary risk associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract type for this survey is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for the actual labor hours and material costs incurred, plus a fixed fee or profit. If the project scope is not tightly controlled, or if unforeseen complexities arise, the contractor may spend more time or resources than initially anticipated, leading to a higher final cost for the government. This necessitates robust government oversight to monitor labor hours, ensure efficiency, and validate the necessity of all expenditures. Without strong management, T&M contracts can be less predictable in terms of final cost compared to other contract types, potentially impacting the overall value for taxpayers.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: DACS12Q2110

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 55 E MONROE ST 30TH FL, CHICAGO, IL, 60603

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: $40,319,359

Exercised Options: $40,319,359

Current Obligation: $40,319,359

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS10F0033M

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline