HHS awarded $13M for administrative infrastructure development to Mitchell Group, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,044,360 ($13.0M)

Contractor: Mitchell Group, Inc. (THE)

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2006-09-28

End Date: 2011-11-01

Contract Duration: 1,860 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CONTRACT AND GRANTS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $13.0 million to MITCHELL GROUP, INC. (THE) for work described as: ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CONTRACT AND GRANTS Key points: 1. The contract focused on administrative management and general management consulting services. 2. It was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 3. The contract duration was 60 months, indicating a medium-term engagement. 4. The award type was a definitive contract, suggesting a clear scope of work. 5. The contract utilized a Time and Materials pricing structure.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $13,044,359.86 for administrative infrastructure development over approximately five years appears to be within a reasonable range for such services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for management consulting and administrative support within federal agencies is necessary for a definitive value assessment. However, without specific details on deliverables and performance metrics, it's challenging to ascertain the precise value for money achieved. The use of Time and Materials pricing can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, specific sources may have been excluded for particular reasons, which warrants further investigation. The presence of two bidders indicates some level of competition, but the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria would provide a clearer picture of the competitive landscape and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive process, even with exclusions, aimed to secure the best value for taxpayers. A more transparent and broader competition could potentially have led to lower pricing or a wider range of innovative solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the various administrative departments within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and potentially other agencies under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The services delivered focused on improving the administrative infrastructure, which supports the efficient operation of research grants and contracts. The geographic impact is likely national, as NIH supports research across the United States. Workforce implications may include the utilization of specialized consulting expertise to streamline administrative processes, potentially impacting federal employee roles in these areas.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials pricing can lead to unpredictable costs if not managed tightly.
The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method requires further clarification to ensure fairness and optimal value.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value delivered.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting an effort to maximize options.
The contract duration of nearly five years indicates a stable, long-term need for these services.
The focus on administrative infrastructure development addresses a critical operational need.

Sector Analysis

The federal sector for administrative management and general management consulting services is substantial, with agencies frequently outsourcing specialized expertise to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This contract fits within the broader category of professional services supporting government operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average cost of similar consulting engagements across various federal departments, considering factors like contract duration, scope, and contractor experience.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a specific set-aside for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, Mitchell Group, Inc., would determine any subcontracting opportunities based on their business needs.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting officer and program managers within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Administrative Support Services
Management and Consulting Services
Contract and Grant Management Systems
Federal IT Infrastructure Support
Government Operations Efficiency

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Limited transparency regarding the specific reasons for excluding certain sources.
Need for detailed performance metrics to fully assess value for money.
Contract duration may exceed the actual need for infrastructure development.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $13.0 million to MITCHELL GROUP, INC. (THE). ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CONTRACT AND GRANTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MITCHELL GROUP, INC. (THE).

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 $13.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-28. End: 2011-11-01.

What specific administrative infrastructure improvements were delivered under this contract?

The contract aimed at the 'ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CONTRACT AND GRANTS.' While the specific deliverables are not detailed in the provided data, such projects typically involve evaluating existing administrative processes, identifying inefficiencies, and implementing new systems or procedures. This could include improvements to grant application portals, contract management software, financial tracking systems, or internal communication platforms. The goal is generally to streamline operations, enhance compliance, and improve the overall efficiency of managing federal contracts and grants within the NIH.

How does the $13 million award compare to similar administrative support contracts at HHS?

Comparing the $13 million award requires access to a broader dataset of similar contracts within HHS and its agencies like NIH. Factors such as contract duration (nearly 5 years), scope of services (administrative infrastructure development), and the specific nature of consulting (management and general) are crucial. Generally, federal agencies utilize significant funding for administrative support and consulting to optimize operations. Without specific benchmarks for comparable projects focusing on grant and contract infrastructure, it's difficult to definitively state if $13 million represents high, low, or average spending. However, it suggests a substantial investment in improving foundational administrative capabilities.

What are the potential risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for this type of service?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, like the one used here, carry inherent risks, primarily related to cost control. Since payment is based on the hours worked by contractor personnel and the cost of materials used, there's a risk of cost escalation if the project scope is not well-defined or if project duration extends beyond initial estimates. For administrative infrastructure development, poorly managed T&M contracts can lead to inefficiencies and budget overruns if the contractor does not have strong incentives to complete tasks promptly. Effective oversight, clear task definitions, and regular performance reviews are critical to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money.

What does 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' imply for the bidding process?

The term 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' suggests a nuanced approach to procurement. Initially, the solicitation was intended to be open to all responsible sources. However, specific sources were subsequently excluded from consideration. The reasons for exclusion could range from non-compliance with solicitation requirements, past performance issues, or specific agency decisions based on strategic considerations. While it implies a broader initial reach than a sole-source award, the exclusion of certain entities might limit the diversity of proposals received and potentially impact the competitive pricing achieved. Understanding the rationale behind the exclusions is key to assessing the true level of competition.

What is the track record of The Mitchell Group, Inc. in securing and performing on federal contracts?

The Mitchell Group, Inc. has a history of securing federal contracts, as evidenced by this award. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine their portfolio of past federal awards, including their performance ratings, contract values, and the types of services rendered. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contractor performance databases can provide insights into their reliability, adherence to schedules, and quality of work. A review of their past performance on similar administrative or management consulting contracts would be particularly relevant for understanding their capabilities in this domain.

How has federal spending on administrative management consulting evolved over the contract's period?

Federal spending on administrative management consulting has generally seen fluctuations driven by agency needs for efficiency, modernization, and specialized expertise. During the period of this contract (2006-2011), agencies were increasingly focused on improving operational effectiveness and leveraging technology. This era saw a continued demand for consulting services to support strategic planning, process re-engineering, and IT integration. While specific aggregate data for this niche requires detailed analysis, the overall trend indicated a sustained reliance on external expertise to address complex administrative challenges within the federal government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1816 11TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20001

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,422,613

Exercised Options: $20,156,021

Current Obligation: $13,044,360

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline