Social Security Administration awards $2.03M BPA Call for medical consultant services in Texas, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $202,500 ($202.5K)

Contractor: Thomas a. VAN Hoose, PH.D., P.C.

Awarding Agency: Social Security Administration

Start Date: 2025-08-01

End Date: 2026-06-30

Contract Duration: 333 days

Daily Burn Rate: $608/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (DALLAS). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEWS.

Place of Performance

Location: CARROLLTON, DALLAS County, TEXAS, 75006

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Social Security Administration obligated $202,500 to THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C. for work described as: BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (DALLAS). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEWS. Key points: 1. The contract is a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, indicating a pre-negotiated agreement for ongoing services. 2. The service involves medical consultant reviews of disability claim case files, crucial for the agency's program integrity. 3. The contract was not competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), suggesting a potential lack of broad market engagement. 4. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the absence of competition raises questions about optimal pricing. 5. The duration of 333 days suggests a focused, short-term need for these specific consultant services. 6. The contractor, THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C., is a single entity providing these specialized reviews.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this BPA Call is challenging without comparable contract data for similar medical consultant services. The fixed-price nature provides cost certainty for the agency. However, the lack of competition means there's no direct market comparison to assess if the pricing is optimal or if a better value could have been achieved through a competitive process. The total award amount of $2.03M for a 333-day period needs to be evaluated against the volume and complexity of case files reviewed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a BPA Call under a pre-existing Blanket Purchase Agreement. The data indicates it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP,' which strongly suggests it was either a sole-source award or competed under different, less transparent procedures than standard competitive solicitations. The absence of explicit competition details means it's unclear how many potential bidders were considered or if market research was conducted to ensure fair pricing and access to the best qualified vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of open competition means taxpayers may not be benefiting from the most cost-effective pricing or the widest range of expertise available in the market for these critical disability claim reviews.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are individuals applying for disability benefits, as the consultant reviews ensure accurate case assessments. The services delivered include independent medical reviews of disability claim case files. The geographic impact is focused on the Southwest Region, specifically Dallas, Texas, where the services are being provided. The contract supports the operational capacity of the Social Security Administration's disability determination process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing and reduced incentive for contractor efficiency.
Limited transparency in the procurement process raises concerns about fairness and potential for unaddressed conflicts of interest.
Reliance on a single firm for critical medical reviews could pose a risk if the firm's capacity or quality declines.

Positive Signals

The fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the Social Security Administration.
The contractor is a specialized firm (Ph.D. in Psychology), suggesting relevant expertise for disability case reviews.
The BPA structure allows for efficient ordering of services as needed, streamlining the procurement process for recurring requirements.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector, specifically focusing on medical consulting. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 621112, 'Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists,' indicates a specialized niche. The market for such services is driven by government agencies requiring expert medical opinions for program administration, such as disability claims processing. Benchmarking against similar government contracts for independent medical reviews would be necessary to fully assess value, but the specialized nature suggests a limited pool of qualified providers.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a factor in this specific award. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements associated with this BPA Call. Therefore, this contract does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem or promote small business subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Social Security Administration's program management and contracting offices. As a BPA Call, the underlying BPA likely has established terms and conditions that include performance standards and reporting requirements. The contract is firm fixed-price, which simplifies financial oversight. However, the lack of competition limits the ability to assess oversight effectiveness through market-based performance comparisons. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Social Security Administration Disability Insurance Program
Independent Medical Examinations
Medical Consulting Services
Government Contract Reviews

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Vendor Pool
Transparency Concerns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Social Security Administration awarded $202,500 to THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C.. BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION (DALLAS). REVIEWS BY MEDICAL CONSULTANT OF DISABILITY CLAIM CASE FILES FOR AGENCY DISABILITY PROGRAM. CALL ORDER FOR INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEWS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Social Security Administration (Social Security Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $202,500.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-08-01. End: 2026-06-30.

What is the track record of THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C. with federal contracts, particularly with the Social Security Administration?

Information regarding the specific track record of THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C. with federal contracts, especially with the Social Security Administration, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive review would require accessing federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) to examine past performance, contract history, and any reported issues or successes. Without this data, it's difficult to assess their reliability, past performance quality, or experience with similar large-scale review contracts. The current award being a sole-source BPA Call suggests a pre-existing relationship or a specific qualification that led to this direct award, but the depth of that relationship and its performance history remain unexamined.

How does the $2.03M award for 333 days compare to similar medical consultant contracts for disability claim reviews?

Direct comparison of the $2.03M award for 333 days is difficult without specific data on the volume and complexity of disability claim case files to be reviewed. However, as a rough estimate, this equates to approximately $6,096 per day or roughly $17,000 per month. This figure needs to be benchmarked against the average cost per case review, considering factors like the medical specialty required, the thoroughness of the review, and the turnaround time. Given the lack of competition, it's hard to ascertain if this rate represents optimal value. A competitive process would typically yield pricing data that allows for such comparisons, revealing whether this rate is at, above, or below market.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding this contract without open competition?

The primary risks associated with awarding this contract without open competition include potential overpayment due to lack of price discovery, reduced incentive for the contractor to perform efficiently or maintain high quality, and a missed opportunity to engage with a broader pool of qualified vendors who might offer innovative solutions or better pricing. There's also a risk that the agency may not be aware of superior capabilities available elsewhere in the market. Furthermore, a sole-source award can sometimes indicate a lack of adequate market research or planning, potentially leading to suboptimal contract terms or reliance on a vendor whose capacity might be strained.

How effective is the current mechanism for reviewing disability claim case files, and how does this contract contribute to that effectiveness?

The effectiveness of the current mechanism for reviewing disability claim case files is directly supported by this contract, which provides essential medical consultant services. The reviews are critical for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of disability determinations made by the Social Security Administration. By engaging specialized medical consultants, the agency aims to improve the quality and consistency of these reviews, potentially leading to more accurate outcomes for beneficiaries and better stewardship of program funds. The contribution to effectiveness hinges on the quality of the reviews provided by THOMAS A. VAN HOOSE, PH.D., P.C., and the efficiency with which they are conducted.

What are the historical spending patterns for medical consultant services by the Social Security Administration?

Historical spending patterns for medical consultant services by the Social Security Administration are not detailed in the provided data. To assess this, one would need to analyze past contract awards for similar services, looking at the total expenditure, the number of contracts awarded, the types of services procured (e.g., specific medical specialties, types of reviews), and the procurement methods used (competitive vs. sole-source). Understanding these patterns would help contextualize the current $2.03M award, indicating whether this represents an increase or decrease in spending, a shift in procurement strategy, or a consistent reliance on specific contractors or service types.

What is the rationale for awarding this BPA Call as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP'?

The rationale for awarding this BPA Call as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) is not explicitly stated in the provided data. Typically, agencies may choose not to compete under SAP for several reasons: the requirement might exceed SAP thresholds, the need might be urgent and require a sole-source justification, the contractor may possess unique qualifications or be the only responsible source, or the award might be made under an existing Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) where the initial competition or justification for the BPA itself covered subsequent calls. Without further information, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact reason, but it suggests a deviation from standard competitive procedures for acquisitions below the full and open threshold.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Health Care and Social Assistance › Offices of Physicians › Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICES › OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2722 RAINTREE DR, CARROLLTON, TX, 75006

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $202,500

Exercised Options: $202,500

Current Obligation: $202,500

Actual Outlays: $127,781

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 28321321AC0640027

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline