McFarland & Associates awarded $14.45M for Minority Education Initiative Program Coordinating Center services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,450,353 ($14.5M)

Contractor: Mcfarland & Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2005-09-15

End Date: 2011-03-15

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MINORITY EDUCATION INITIATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATING CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: SILVER SPRING, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20910

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $14.5 million to MCFARLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: MINORITY EDUCATION INITIATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATING CENTER Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-award-fee basis, allowing for flexibility in contractor compensation based on performance. 2. The contract duration spanned over five years, indicating a sustained need for the services provided. 3. Services were procured through a competitive delivery order, suggesting a degree of market engagement. 4. The contract's value of $14.45 million over its term suggests a significant investment in program coordination. 5. The geographic location of the contractor in Maryland may indicate a focus on regional or national program support. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor was not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities are not explicitly detailed.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract was awarded on a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) basis, which can lead to higher costs if performance incentives are heavily weighted and not carefully managed. Benchmarking the exact value-for-money is challenging without detailed performance metrics and comparison to similar program coordinating centers. However, the duration and total value suggest a substantial commitment to the initiative.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, implying that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the competitive nature suggests that the government sought to leverage market forces to obtain the best value. This approach generally leads to more favorable pricing and service offerings compared to sole-source procurements.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering price discovery and encouraging contractors to offer competitive terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely minority students and educational institutions targeted by the Minority Education Initiative Program. The services delivered would have involved coordinating and supporting the various aspects of the initiative, ensuring its effective implementation. The geographic impact could be national, depending on the scope of the Minority Education Initiative Program. Workforce implications might include employment opportunities for program managers, administrative staff, and subject matter experts within the coordinating center.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-award-fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not meticulously monitored.
Lack of specific detail on performance metrics makes it difficult to fully assess the value achieved for the funds expended.
The duration of the contract (over 5 years) could indicate potential for contractor complacency if oversight is not robust.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a competitive delivery order, indicating a degree of market vetting.
The sustained funding over several years suggests the program and the services provided were deemed valuable and necessary.
The contract's focus on a specific initiative (Minority Education) points to targeted government investment in social programs.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader professional services sector, specifically supporting government program management and coordination. This type of contract is common for agencies seeking to outsource specialized administrative and operational functions. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other program coordinating centers or management support contracts within federal agencies, particularly those focused on education or social initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, McFarland & Associates, Inc. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans or performance. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor actively engaged small businesses as subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, performance metrics and cost controls would be critical areas of oversight. Transparency would depend on the agency's reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply for any investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Minority Education Programs
Federal Education Grants
Program Management Support Services
Department of Health and Human Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost-plus-award-fee contracts require diligent oversight to ensure cost control and value.
Performance metrics for award fee determination were not specified in the data.
Lack of small business subcontracting details limits assessment of broader economic impact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $14.5 million to MCFARLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.. MINORITY EDUCATION INITIATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATING CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MCFARLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-15. End: 2011-03-15.

What specific services did McFarland & Associates, Inc. provide under this contract?

While the contract title is 'MINORITY EDUCATION INITIATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATING CENTER,' the specific services provided by McFarland & Associates, Inc. are not detailed in the provided data. Generally, a program coordinating center would be responsible for a range of activities such as facilitating communication among stakeholders, managing program logistics, tracking progress towards initiative goals, providing administrative support, potentially developing outreach materials, and ensuring compliance with program requirements. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests that performance in delivering these services was evaluated and tied to contractor compensation.

How does the $14.45 million contract value compare to similar program coordinating center contracts?

Direct comparison of the $14.45 million contract value is difficult without knowing the specific scope, duration, and complexity of other 'Minority Education Initiative Program Coordinating Center' contracts or similar program management roles. However, for a contract spanning over five years (September 2005 to March 2011), this value represents an average annual expenditure of approximately $2.89 million. This figure is within a reasonable range for federal contracts supporting significant national initiatives that require dedicated coordination and management resources. Benchmarking would require identifying contracts with similar objectives and service requirements.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the 'award fee' for McFarland & Associates, Inc.?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used for the award fee component of this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract. In CPAF contracts, the agency typically establishes a set of measurable performance objectives related to the services being procured. These could include metrics related to program outreach, stakeholder engagement, timely reporting, adherence to budget, successful implementation of program activities, and overall effectiveness in supporting the Minority Education Initiative. The contractor's achievement against these KPIs would then determine the amount of award fee earned, up to a pre-defined ceiling.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Minority Education Initiative Program Coordinating Center?

The provided data pertains to a single contract awarded to McFarland & Associates, Inc. from September 15, 2005, to March 15, 2011, valued at $14,450,353. This represents a specific period of spending for the coordinating center function. To understand the broader historical spending pattern, one would need to examine funding and contract data for the Minority Education Initiative Program both before and after this contract's period of performance. This would involve looking at previous coordinating entities, potential gaps in service, and subsequent contracts awarded for similar functions.

Were there any identified risks or challenges associated with McFarland & Associates, Inc.'s performance on this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly detail any specific risks or challenges encountered during McFarland & Associates, Inc.'s performance on this contract. However, as noted in the 'wi' (work insights) section, CPAF contracts inherently carry risks related to cost management and the potential for overruns if performance incentives are not carefully structured and monitored. Without access to contract performance reports, audits, or agency evaluations, it's impossible to definitively state whether specific challenges arose. The 'fair' rating for value assessment suggests that while the contract was competitively awarded, the value proposition may not have been exceptionally strong or was difficult to fully ascertain.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8601 GEORGIA AVE STE 601, SILVER SPRING, MD, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,450,353

Exercised Options: $14,450,353

Current Obligation: $14,450,353

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 280020500

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline