DHHS awards $16.8M to Medical University of South Carolina for R&D, full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,880,201 ($16.9M)

Contractor: THE Medical University of South Carolina

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2002-09-15

End Date: 2010-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,845 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 21

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: R&D

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLESTON, CHARLESTON County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29425

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $16.9 million to THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant investment in research and development within the physical, engineering, and life sciences. 2. Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for competitive pricing. 3. Long contract duration (2002-2010) may indicate complex, long-term research needs. 4. The 'COST NO FEE' contract type implies the government bears the cost, with no profit margin for the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The 'COST NO FEE' contract type is unusual for R&D and suggests the government is covering all costs without a contractor profit. This makes direct pricing comparisons difficult without understanding the cost structure and fee arrangement.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

Full and open competition was utilized, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This method generally promotes price discovery and competitive pricing, although the 'COST NO FEE' structure complicates standard price analysis.

Taxpayer Impact: The primary taxpayer impact is the direct funding of research and development activities. The 'COST NO FEE' structure means taxpayers are funding the direct costs of the work performed.

Public Impact

Supports advancements in physical, engineering, and life sciences, potentially leading to new technologies or treatments. Funding allocated to a major academic medical institution, fostering scientific innovation and education. The long-term nature of the award suggests a sustained commitment to specific research objectives.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 100 / 10

Warning Flags

Unusual 'COST NO FEE' contract type for R&D, making standard profit/fee analysis impossible.
Long contract duration could lead to scope creep or cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Lack of small business participation noted.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition indicates a healthy market for these R&D services.
Significant investment in a critical research area.
Award to a reputable medical university.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710). Spending in this sector is crucial for innovation and technological advancement, with significant government investment aimed at scientific discovery and application.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small businesses were not involved in this contract (sb: false). Further analysis would be needed to determine if opportunities were missed or if the nature of the research inherently favored larger institutions.

Oversight & Accountability

The long duration of the contract (2002-2010) necessitates robust oversight to ensure research objectives are met, costs are controlled, and the 'COST NO FEE' structure is appropriately managed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Related Government Programs

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Department of Health and Human Services Contracting
National Institutes of Health Programs

Risk Flags

Contract type ('COST NO FEE') is unusual for R&D and lacks standard profit incentives.
Long contract duration (8 years) increases risk of cost escalation and scope creep.
No indication of small business participation.
Limited information on specific research outcomes and their impact.
Potential for inefficient resource allocation due to the absence of a profit motive.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $16.9 million to THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (National Institutes of Health).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-09-15. End: 2010-06-30.

What specific research outcomes were achieved during the 8-year period, and how do they align with the initial objectives and taxpayer investment?

The contract spanned nearly 8 years, suggesting a substantial research effort. Without specific deliverables or outcome reports, it's difficult to assess the direct return on the $16.8 million investment. The 'COST NO FEE' structure implies the focus was on covering expenses rather than incentivizing specific, high-value outcomes through profit.

How was the 'COST NO FEE' structure justified for this R&D contract, and what mechanisms were in place to prevent cost overruns or ensure efficient resource utilization?

The 'COST NO FEE' structure is atypical for R&D and warrants scrutiny. It suggests the government assumed all direct costs without a contractor profit margin. Oversight would be critical to ensure the Medical University of South Carolina diligently managed expenses and adhered to the research scope without the typical financial incentives or penalties associated with profit-driven contracts.

Given the full and open competition, what was the competitive landscape, and were there any indications that alternative approaches or contractors could have yielded better value or outcomes?

Full and open competition suggests a competitive environment existed. However, the 'COST NO FEE' aspect complicates value assessment. While competition theoretically drives efficiency, the lack of a profit motive for the contractor might alter performance dynamics. Understanding the bidding process and the specific terms offered by competitors would be necessary to fully evaluate the value achieved.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › N – Health R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 21

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: South Carolina, State of (UEI: 067006072)

Address: 171 ASHLEY AVE, CHARLESTON, SC, 06

Business Categories: Category Business, Educational Institution, Higher Education, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,101,679

Exercised Options: $3,101,679

Current Obligation: $16,880,201

Timeline