HHS awarded $27.6M to Massachusetts Peer Review Organization for public health program administration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,632,957 ($27.6M)

Contractor: Massachusetts Peer Review Organization, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2008-02-08

End Date: 2009-03-31

Contract Duration: 417 days

Daily Burn Rate: $66.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: QIO

Place of Performance

Location: WALTHAM, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02451

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $27.6 million to MASSACHUSETTS PEER REVIEW ORGANIZATION, INC. for work described as: QIO Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of public health program administration. 2. Sole-source award limits opportunities for competitive pricing and potentially higher costs. 3. The contract duration of over a year suggests a need for sustained services. 4. Performance context is limited without specific metrics on program outcomes. 5. This contract falls within the broader healthcare and public health sector spending. 6. The lack of competition raises questions about optimal resource allocation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $27.6 million over approximately 14 months for public health program administration is difficult to benchmark without specific service details. However, given the nature of administering public health programs, which often involve complex data management, stakeholder coordination, and regulatory compliance, the cost appears within a plausible range. The absence of competitive bidding, however, prevents a direct comparison to market rates or assessment of whether a lower price could have been achieved through a competitive process. The fixed fee component suggests some cost control, but the overall value proposition is obscured by the sole-source nature.

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 indicates that the agency identified a specific contractor deemed uniquely qualified or that circumstances precluded a competitive solicitation. Without a competitive process, it is impossible to determine the number of potential bidders or the range of pricing that might have emerged. This approach limits the agency's ability to explore alternative solutions or secure the most cost-effective services available in the market.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as they forgo the benefits of competition, such as lower prices and innovative solutions. This can result in less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include the general public through the administration of public health programs. Services delivered likely involve program management, data analysis, and reporting for public health initiatives. The geographic impact is likely national, given the scope of federal public health programs. Workforce implications may include the need for specialized administrative and public health expertise within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source awards can reduce transparency and accountability.
Limited data available to assess the contractor's past performance on similar contracts.
Contract duration and value warrant scrutiny for efficiency.

Positive Signals

Contract is for essential public health program administration.
Contract has a defined period of performance.
The contractor is based in Massachusetts, potentially supporting regional expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the healthcare and public health sector, a significant area of federal spending. The market for public health program administration services is diverse, encompassing government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private contractors. Federal spending in this area is driven by the need to manage and implement a wide range of health initiatives, from disease prevention to healthcare access. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered, but it represents a portion of the broader federal investment in public health infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not competed and does not specify any small business set-aside or subcontracting goals. Therefore, its direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. Without a competitive process, opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors or subcontractors are likely limited. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any small business participation was mandated or occurred voluntarily.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a sole-source award, it may be subject to specific agency review processes to justify the non-competitive nature. Accountability would typically be managed through contract performance reviews and deliverables. Transparency is limited due to the lack of a competitive bidding process and public disclosure of detailed performance metrics. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Public Health Services
Healthcare Administration Contracts
Federal Health IT Programs
Medicare and Medicaid Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and potential cost savings.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Contract duration and value warrant scrutiny for efficiency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $27.6 million to MASSACHUSETTS PEER REVIEW ORGANIZATION, INC.. QIO

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MASSACHUSETTS PEER REVIEW ORGANIZATION, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-08. End: 2009-03-31.

What specific public health programs were administered under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Administration of Public Health Programs' under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, the specific programs are not detailed. Typically, CMS administers programs related to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as initiatives focused on quality improvement, health equity, and public health data management. This contract likely supported the operational and administrative functions necessary for one or more of these broad areas, potentially involving data collection, analysis, reporting, or coordination with healthcare providers and beneficiaries.

What is the track record of Massachusetts Peer Review Organization, Inc. with federal contracts?

Massachusetts Peer Review Organization, Inc. (MassPRO) has a history of working with federal agencies, particularly in healthcare quality improvement and program administration. As a Peer Review Organization (PRO), its core function involves evaluating the quality and appropriateness of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. While this specific contract was a sole-source award for public health program administration, MassPRO's broader experience suggests a capacity for managing complex healthcare-related tasks. Further analysis of their contract history, including performance ratings and any past issues, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their track record.

How does the contract value compare to similar public health administration contracts?

Direct comparison of the $27.6 million contract value is challenging without knowing the precise scope of services and duration. However, federal contracts for public health program administration can vary widely. Contracts supporting large-scale national initiatives or complex data systems can run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Smaller, more focused contracts might be in the low millions. Given this contract's duration of approximately 14 months and its sole-source nature, it's difficult to definitively state if the value represents optimal pricing. A competitive process would have provided a clearer market benchmark.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract. For contracts involving the administration of public health programs, typical KPIs might include metrics related to program efficiency, accuracy of data reporting, timeliness of service delivery, stakeholder satisfaction, and adherence to regulatory requirements. Without these specific metrics, it is difficult to objectively assess the contractor's performance and the overall effectiveness of the services provided under this award.

What is the historical spending trend for public health program administration by HHS?

Historical spending trends for public health program administration by HHS are substantial and generally increasing, reflecting the government's commitment to public health initiatives. HHS, through agencies like CMS and the CDC, allocates significant funds annually to manage and implement a vast array of programs aimed at improving population health, preventing disease, and ensuring access to care. While specific figures for 'Administration of Public Health Programs' fluctuate based on legislative priorities and emerging health challenges, the overall trend indicates a consistent and growing investment in this critical area of government function.

Were there any risks identified during the sole-source justification process?

The provided data does not include details about the specific risks identified during the sole-source justification process for this contract. Sole-source procurements typically require a detailed justification that outlines why competition is not feasible or advantageous. This justification often includes an assessment of potential risks associated with delaying the procurement, the unique capabilities of the sole-source provider, or the potential negative impacts on program continuity. Without access to the justification document, it's impossible to detail the specific risks considered.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Administration of Human Resource Programs › Administration of Public Health Programs

Product/Service Code: MEDICAL SERVICES › DEPENDENT MEDICARE SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 245 WINTER ST, WALTHAM, MA, 02451

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,632,957

Exercised Options: $27,632,957

Current Obligation: $27,632,957

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline