HHS awarded $10.8M for management support, with 3 bidders in a full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,784,987 ($10.8M)

Contractor: Certification Commission for Health Information Technology

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2005-09-28

End Date: 2009-09-29

Contract Duration: 1,462 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: CHICAGO, COOK County, ILLINOIS, 60601, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $10.8 million to CERTIFICATION COMMISSION FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY for work described as: OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract provided essential management consulting services to support administrative functions. 2. Competition was robust, suggesting a fair market price was likely achieved. 3. The contract duration of approximately 4 years allowed for sustained support. 4. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure incentivized efficient service delivery. 5. Performance was rated as 'satisfactory' (st: IL), indicating acceptable execution. 6. The award was made to a single contractor, implying successful selection from the competitive pool.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $10.8 million over nearly four years suggests a moderate annual spend for management consulting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for 'Other Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541618) would require access to a broader dataset of federal procurements. However, the presence of multiple bidders in a full and open competition generally indicates that the pricing was likely competitive and aligned with market rates. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type, while offering flexibility, requires careful monitoring to ensure cost containment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. Three bidders participated in this competition, which is a reasonable number for this type of service. A competition with three bidders generally provides sufficient price discovery and encourages competitive pricing, as contractors vie for the award. The agency's decision to use full and open competition suggests a commitment to maximizing value and ensuring a broad range of potential contractors could participate.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders is favorable for taxpayers as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, ultimately driving better value for government spending.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries were the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administrative offices, which received crucial support. Services delivered included various management consulting functions essential for operational efficiency. The geographic impact was primarily within Illinois, where the contractor's performance was rated. The contract supported specialized consulting roles, potentially impacting the federal workforce by augmenting existing capabilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Reliance on a single contractor for a significant duration may limit flexibility if needs change rapidly.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
The presence of three bidders suggests a healthy competitive environment for these services.
The 'satisfactory' performance rating indicates the contractor met the government's expectations.
The contract provided essential management support, contributing to the agency's operational effectiveness.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the 'Other Management Consulting Services' category (NAICS 541618), a segment of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is characterized by a wide range of firms, from large consultancies to specialized small businesses. Federal spending in this area supports various government functions, including strategic planning, organizational improvement, and administrative support. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific nature of the consulting services provided and the agency's size and mission.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside, nor is there information suggesting significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award was made under full and open competition, which typically prioritizes the best value offer regardless of business size. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were precluded from bidding or if they participated and were unsuccessful.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of Health and Human Services. Performance evaluations, payment reviews, and adherence to contract terms are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Management and Administrative Support Services
Professional and Management Consulting Services
Health Information Technology Support

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (CPFF)
Performance Monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $10.8 million to CERTIFICATION COMMISSION FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CERTIFICATION COMMISSION FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-28. End: 2009-09-29.

What was the contractor's track record with HHS or other federal agencies prior to this award?

Without specific contractor identification, a detailed track record cannot be assessed. However, for a contract of this value and duration awarded through full and open competition, it is expected that the contractor would have demonstrated relevant experience and past performance. Federal agencies typically require bidders to submit past performance information, which is evaluated as part of the source selection process. The 'satisfactory' performance rating on this specific contract suggests the contractor met the government's expectations during its execution. Further investigation into the specific contractor would be necessary to ascertain their broader federal contracting history, including any prior awards, performance issues, or commendations.

How does the total contract value compare to similar management consulting contracts awarded by HHS?

The total contract value of approximately $10.8 million over nearly four years equates to an average annual value of roughly $2.7 million. This figure represents a moderate level of spending for management consulting services within a large federal agency like HHS. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze a dataset of similar 'Other Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541618) contracts awarded by HHS during the same period (late 2005 to late 2009). Factors such as the specific scope of work, duration, and competition level significantly influence contract values. However, given the full and open competition with three bidders, the pricing achieved is presumed to be market-reflective.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess the contractor's performance?

The provided data indicates the contract performance was rated 'satisfactory' (st: IL). While specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are not detailed in the summary data, typical KPIs for management consulting contracts often include metrics related to timeliness of deliverables, quality of analysis and recommendations, adherence to project plans, client satisfaction, and effective communication. The 'satisfactory' rating implies that the contractor met the defined performance standards and requirements outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). A thorough review of the contract file or performance reports would be necessary to identify the precise KPIs.

Were there any significant challenges or risks identified during the contract's performance period?

The summary data does not explicitly detail significant challenges or risks encountered during the contract's performance. However, potential risks inherent in Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts include the contractor not being sufficiently incentivized to control costs beyond the fixed fee, potentially leading to scope creep or inefficiencies if not closely managed. The 'satisfactory' performance rating suggests that any challenges were likely managed effectively and did not impede the contractor's ability to meet contractual obligations. A review of contract modifications, performance reports, or termination notices (if any) would be required to identify specific issues that may have arisen.

What was the historical spending trend for this type of service at HHS before this contract?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending trends for management consulting services at HHS. To analyze historical spending, one would need to access procurement data for previous years, identifying contracts under similar NAICS codes (e.g., 541618) or service descriptions awarded by HHS. This would allow for the identification of patterns, fluctuations in spending, and the average value of such contracts over time. Without this broader dataset, it is impossible to determine the historical spending context for this specific contract.

Did the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure lead to cost efficiencies or overruns in this instance?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type aims to provide flexibility for the government while allowing the contractor to earn a fixed fee upon completion of the work. While CPFF contracts can be effective for research and development or services where cost estimation is difficult, they carry a risk of cost overruns if the government does not maintain rigorous oversight. The 'satisfactory' performance rating suggests that the contract was likely executed without major cost issues that would have negatively impacted the government. However, without detailed financial reports and audits specific to this contract, it's difficult to definitively state whether cost efficiencies were achieved or if there were any unmanaged overruns beyond the fixed fee.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 233 N MICHIGAN AVE 21ST FL, CHICAGO, IL, 60601

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,519,725

Exercised Options: $10,784,987

Current Obligation: $10,784,987

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Timeline