Department of Education awards $15.6M contract for Title I and Title II fund usage evaluation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,635,418 ($15.6M)

Contractor: Westat, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2011-09-26

End Date: 2023-03-31

Contract Duration: 4,204 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT AN IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION OF HOW STATES, SCHOOLS, AND DISTRICTS ARE USING TITLE I AND TITLE II FUNDS AND TO EXAMINE STUDENT OUTCOME TRENDS PRE- AND POST-REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA).

Place of Performance

Location: ROCKVILLE, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20850

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $15.6 million to WESTAT, INC. for work described as: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT AN IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION OF HOW STATES, SCHOOLS, AND DISTRICTS ARE USING TITLE I AND TITLE II FUNDS AND TO EXAMINE STUDENT OUTCOME TRENDS PRE- AND POST-REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION… Key points: 1. Contract focuses on evaluating the implementation of federal education funding at state, school, and district levels. 2. Examines student outcome trends in relation to ESEA reauthorization, providing insights into program effectiveness. 3. The contract duration of over 4200 days suggests a long-term, comprehensive evaluation approach. 4. Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a broad market engagement. 5. The cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes contractor performance and value delivery. 6. Westat, Inc. is the contractor, suggesting a reliance on established research and development expertise.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $15.6 million over approximately 11.5 years (4204 days) averages to roughly $1.36 million per year. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale federal program evaluations is challenging without more specific data on scope and deliverables. However, the cost-plus award fee structure suggests that the government aims to ensure value by tying a portion of the contractor's fee to performance outcomes. The total award amount appears reasonable for a multi-year, in-depth evaluation of significant federal education programs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. With three bidders participating, this indicates a healthy level of competition for this research and development requirement. The competitive process likely contributed to establishing a fair market price and encouraged multiple approaches to fulfilling the evaluation objectives.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more cost-effective solutions and better value for the government's investment.

Public Impact

States, school districts, and individual schools will benefit from insights into effective use of Title I and Title II funds. Students may see improved educational outcomes due to better-informed resource allocation and program implementation. The evaluation provides critical data for policymakers to refine federal education funding strategies. Researchers and academics will gain access to valuable data on educational program implementation and student performance trends.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to scope creep or evolving requirements that may impact cost-effectiveness over time.
Cost-plus award fee contracts can sometimes incentivize higher spending if not carefully managed and monitored.
The complexity of evaluating student outcome trends requires robust data collection and analytical methodologies to ensure accuracy.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
The award fee structure provides an incentive for the contractor to achieve high-quality performance and deliver value.
The long duration allows for in-depth analysis and tracking of trends over a significant period.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities sector (NAICS 541720). This sector involves conducting research and providing analysis in fields like education, sociology, and economics. The market for such services is characterized by specialized firms with expertise in data collection, statistical analysis, and program evaluation. The Department of Education frequently procures services in this area to assess the impact and efficacy of its funding initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. As a large-scale research and development contract, it is likely that the prime contractor, Westat, Inc., may engage small businesses for specialized support services, but this is not guaranteed by the contract terms provided. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Education's contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus award fee structure implies performance metrics and deliverables that will be regularly reviewed. While not explicitly stated, Inspector General oversight is a standard component of federal contracts, ensuring accountability and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. Transparency would be facilitated through the eventual publication of evaluation reports.

Related Government Programs

Title I Funding
Title II Funding
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Federal Education Program Evaluations
Educational Outcome Analysis

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or relevance issues.
Cost-plus award fee requires diligent oversight to manage costs and ensure value.
Complexity of evaluating student outcomes necessitates robust data integrity and analytical rigor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $15.6 million to WESTAT, INC.. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT AN IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION OF HOW STATES, SCHOOLS, AND DISTRICTS ARE USING TITLE I AND TITLE II FUNDS AND TO EXAMINE STUDENT OUTCOME TRENDS PRE- AND POST-REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA).

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WESTAT, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Education (Department of Education).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-26. End: 2023-03-31.

What is Westat, Inc.'s track record with federal education evaluation contracts?

Westat, Inc. has a significant history of performing research and evaluation services for federal agencies, including the Department of Education. They have been involved in numerous studies related to education policy, student achievement, and program effectiveness. Their experience often includes large-scale data collection, survey design, statistical analysis, and reporting on complex educational issues. This background suggests they possess the necessary expertise and infrastructure to manage a contract of this scope and duration, having likely navigated similar requirements and reporting structures in previous engagements. Their established presence in the federal research space indicates a familiarity with government contracting processes and compliance standards.

How does the $15.6 million cost compare to similar federal education program evaluations?

Directly comparing the $15.6 million cost to similar federal education program evaluations is challenging without detailed scope and deliverable information for those other contracts. However, large-scale, multi-year evaluations of significant federal programs like Title I and Title II, which involve extensive data collection across numerous states and districts and analysis of student outcomes, typically require substantial funding. The duration of this contract (over 11 years) also contributes significantly to the total cost. Given the complexity and breadth of the evaluation mandate, the total award appears to be within a reasonable range for such a comprehensive undertaking, especially considering the cost-plus award fee structure which aims to ensure performance.

What are the primary risks associated with a contract of this duration and type?

A primary risk with a contract spanning over 11 years is the potential for evolving requirements or changes in federal education policy that may necessitate adjustments to the evaluation scope, potentially impacting cost and timeline. Another risk is 'contractor drift,' where the contractor may deviate from the original objectives or lose focus over such an extended period. Furthermore, the cost-plus award fee structure, while incentivizing performance, carries a risk if not meticulously monitored; it could potentially lead to higher expenditures if the government's oversight is not rigorous in managing allowable costs and ensuring the award fee is truly earned based on exceptional performance. Ensuring continuity of key personnel over such a long period also presents a challenge.

How effective is the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure in ensuring value for this specific contract?

The Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is designed to provide flexibility in cost reimbursement while incentivizing contractor performance through an award fee tied to specific performance criteria. For this evaluation contract, CPAF can be effective if the performance objectives are clearly defined, measurable, and aligned with the Department of Education's goals for understanding Title I and Title II fund usage and student outcomes. The 'award' portion encourages Westat, Inc. to go beyond minimum requirements, potentially leading to higher quality analysis and more impactful findings. However, its effectiveness hinges on robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and the award fee is justified based on demonstrable success in meeting or exceeding performance standards. Without strong oversight, CPAF can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar federal education program evaluations?

Historical spending on similar federal education program evaluations by agencies like the Department of Education often shows significant variation based on the scope, duration, and complexity of the evaluation. Large-scale, longitudinal studies examining the impact of major federal initiatives, such as Title I or Title II, typically involve multi-million dollar awards. Contracts can range from a few million dollars for shorter-term, focused studies to tens of millions for comprehensive, multi-year assessments involving extensive data collection and analysis across diverse populations and geographic areas. The $15.6 million awarded here for an 11-year evaluation aligns with the upper end of spending for significant, long-term program assessments, reflecting the depth and breadth of the required analysis.

What are the implications of the 'definitive contract' type for this award?

The contract is classified as a 'definitive contract,' which typically implies a fixed price or cost-reimbursement contract with a definite quantity and delivery schedule, as opposed to a letter contract or other preliminary agreement. In this case, it's a 'cost plus award fee' definitive contract. This means the contract outlines the specific scope of work, the period of performance (ending March 31, 2023, though the duration is noted as 4204 days, suggesting a long performance period), and the terms under which costs will be reimbursed and award fees earned. It provides a clear framework for the contractor and the government, establishing the parameters for the extensive evaluation work required over its long duration.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: ED-IES-11-R-0076

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1600 RESEARCH BLVD, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,635,418

Exercised Options: $15,635,418

Current Obligation: $15,635,418

Actual Outlays: $6,625,661

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $4,076,485

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline