DOJ awards $1.55B for expert witness services to Medical Record Review LLC, a sole-source contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,466 ($15.5K)

Contractor: Medical Record Review LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-12-19

End Date: 2028-12-18

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATIVE CASE SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: NAPLES, COLLIER County, FLORIDA, 34114

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $15,466 to MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW LLC for work described as: EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATIVE CASE SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Significant contract value suggests critical need for specialized litigation support. 3. Time and Materials pricing structure carries inherent cost escalation risks. 4. Contract duration of three years indicates a long-term requirement. 5. Geographic focus on Florida for the contractor. 6. Services fall under 'All Other Legal Services' NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $1.55 billion is substantial, raising questions about value for money given the sole-source award. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing model, while flexible, can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed, making a definitive value assessment challenging without detailed performance and cost data. The absence of competition inherently limits the government's ability to secure the best possible price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, often due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was bypassed, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The justification for a sole-source award would need to be robust to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding. This can result in higher overall spending for essential services.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice benefits from specialized expert witness and litigation support services. Legal cases requiring extensive medical record review will be supported. The primary geographic impact is within Florida, where the contractor is based. The contract supports legal professionals and administrative staff involved in litigation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Time and Materials contract type poses risk of cost escalation.
High contract value requires rigorous oversight to ensure efficiency.
Lack of transparency in sole-source justification could hide inefficiencies.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses a critical need for specialized legal support services.
Long-term contract duration provides stability for essential services.
Contractor is based in Florida, potentially supporting regional DOJ needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically legal services. The market for expert witness and litigation support is specialized, often involving firms with deep expertise in specific fields like medical record review. While precise market size data for this niche is difficult to isolate, the overall legal services industry is vast. This contract represents a significant portion of spending within this specialized sub-sector for the Department of Justice, likely reflecting the volume and complexity of litigation the agency handles.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to involve small business set-asides, as it was awarded sole-source to a single entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The large value and specialized nature of the services may make it challenging for small businesses to participate, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, unless specifically included in the contractor's strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Justice's contracting officers and program managers. Given the sole-source nature and significant value, robust oversight is crucial to monitor performance, control costs, and ensure compliance with contract terms. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and ongoing performance metrics would be key accountability measures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Legal Services Contracts
Expert Witness Services
Litigation Support
Medical Record Analysis
Department of Justice Procurement

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Time and Materials pricing
High contract value
Lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $15,466 to MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW LLC. EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATIVE CASE SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Offices, Boards and Divisions).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15,466.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-12-19. End: 2028-12-18.

What is the specific justification provided by the Department of Justice for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified under circumstances such as when only one responsible source is available or capable of providing the required services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. For a contract of this magnitude ($1.55 billion), the justification would likely involve demonstrating unique capabilities, specialized expertise, or a critical requirement that cannot be met by other vendors. A thorough review of the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval or J&A) would be necessary to understand the rationale and assess its validity.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure compare to other potential contract types for these services, and what are the associated risks?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are flexible and suitable when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change. However, they carry a higher risk of cost escalation for the government compared to fixed-price contracts, as the final cost depends on the actual hours worked and materials used. For expert witness and litigation support, T&M allows for adaptation to evolving case needs. Alternative contract types like Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) could offer better cost certainty if the scope were more predictable, but might stifle flexibility. Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) could also be an option, but T&M is often chosen for its adaptability in dynamic legal environments, necessitating strong government oversight to manage costs.

What is the historical spending pattern for expert witness and litigation support services by the Department of Justice, and how does this award compare?

The provided data does not contain historical spending patterns for the Department of Justice (DOJ) in this category. However, a $1.55 billion award for expert witness and litigation support is exceptionally large, suggesting either a significant increase in the DOJ's litigation needs, a consolidation of previously fragmented contracts, or a long-term strategic sourcing initiative. To assess its comparability, one would need to analyze historical DOJ spending on similar services, looking at the number of contracts, their individual values, and the types of services procured. Without this context, it's difficult to determine if this award represents a substantial increase or a shift in procurement strategy.

What are the potential performance risks associated with a sole-source Time and Materials contract of this size and duration?

A sole-source Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this magnitude ($1.55 billion over potentially three years) carries several performance risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can reduce the contractor's incentive to perform efficiently and cost-effectively. Secondly, the T&M structure, without robust controls, can lead to uncontrolled cost growth if hours and materials are not meticulously tracked and justified. Thirdly, the long duration might lead to complacency or a decline in service quality if performance monitoring is lax. Finally, reliance on a single source for critical litigation support could create vulnerabilities if the contractor faces financial instability, legal challenges, or fails to maintain the required expertise.

What is the typical market rate or benchmark for medical record review services provided to federal agencies, and how might this contract's pricing compare?

Determining a precise market rate for medical record review services is complex due to variations in complexity, volume, required expertise, and geographic location. However, for federal agencies, rates can range significantly. Hourly rates for paralegals or junior reviewers might be in the $75-$150 range, while senior medical experts or specialized reviewers could command $300-$1000+ per hour. Given this contract is T&M and sole-source, its effective hourly or per-record cost is unknown without further data. A $1.55 billion contract implies a massive volume of work, and without competitive benchmarks, it's impossible to definitively state if the pricing is favorable. Rigorous internal cost analysis and comparison to industry standards for similar large-scale government contracts would be essential.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1252 RIALTO WAY UNIT 201, NAPLES, FL, 34114

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,466

Exercised Options: $15,466

Current Obligation: $15,466

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline