HHS awarded $23.9M for comprehensive community mental health services, with a significant portion allocated to California

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,946,880 ($23.9M)

Contractor: Walter R Mcdonald & Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2005-09-15

End Date: 2011-09-13

Contract Duration: 2,189 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: EVALUATION OF TH EOCMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO County, CALIFORNIA, 95833

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $23.9 million to WALTER R MCDONALD & ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: EVALUATION OF TH EOCMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes performance but requires careful monitoring of award fees. 2. Competition was conducted after exclusion of sources, suggesting potential limitations in market reach. 3. The contract duration of nearly 6 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Performance is benchmarked against similar contracts for mental health services for children and families. 5. The contract falls under 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services', a broad category. 6. The award to Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. represents a significant investment in child and family mental health.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $23.9 million over approximately six years for comprehensive community mental health services for children and their families appears to be within a reasonable range for such extensive programs. However, without specific details on the services delivered and the number of individuals served, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure allows for contractor flexibility and performance incentives, but it also necessitates robust oversight to ensure that award fees are justified by exceptional performance and do not inflate costs unnecessarily. Benchmarking against similar contracts would provide a clearer picture of cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES'. This procurement method indicates that while the government initially intended full and open competition, certain sources were excluded, potentially due to specific requirements or prior relationships. The exact reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can limit the pool of potential bidders compared to a truly open competition. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to fully assess the competitive landscape and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in less downward pressure on pricing than a broader competition would have achieved, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

Public Impact

Children and families in need of comprehensive mental health services are the primary beneficiaries. The program aims to deliver a range of mental health support, including therapeutic interventions and family support. The contract specifies California as the service delivery location, indicating a geographic focus. The services provided are expected to support the mental well-being of a vulnerable population, potentially improving educational and social outcomes for children.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential missed opportunities for cost savings.
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, while incentivizing performance, can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed and overseen.
Lack of detailed performance metrics and outcomes makes it difficult to definitively assess the program's effectiveness and value.
The broad 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category may obscure the specific nature and cost drivers of the mental health services provided.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a critical need for comprehensive mental health services for children and families.
The long contract duration (nearly 6 years) suggests a sustained commitment to addressing these needs.
The award fee mechanism, if properly managed, can drive high-quality service delivery.
The focus on a specific geographic area (California) allows for tailored service delivery.

Sector Analysis

The 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category (NAICS 541690) is broad and encompasses a wide range of advisory and support services. Within the healthcare sector, this contract specifically targets community mental health services for a vulnerable population. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar comprehensive mental health programs for children and families can vary significantly based on the scope of services, geographic region, and provider type. The total contract value of $23.9 million over nearly six years suggests a substantial program, likely involving multiple service components and a significant number of beneficiaries.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included small business set-asides or specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award was made to Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., a single entity. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any small business participation occurred through subcontracting, but it was not a primary feature of the contract's award structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, rigorous oversight is crucial to monitor costs, evaluate performance against defined criteria, and ensure that award fees are justified. Transparency regarding performance metrics, expenditures, and outcomes would be key indicators of effective oversight. The Inspector General's office within HHS would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any concerns regarding fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
Community Mental Health Centers
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Family Support Services
Healthcare Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price discovery.
CPAF structure requires robust oversight to manage costs and justify award fees.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data hinders full value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $23.9 million to WALTER R MCDONALD & ASSOCIATES, INC.. EVALUATION OF TH EOCMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WALTER R MCDONALD & 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 $23.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-15. End: 2011-09-13.

What specific mental health services are included under this contract, and what are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure success?

The contract data indicates 'COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES PROGRAM,' suggesting a broad scope of services. These likely include therapeutic interventions (individual, group, family therapy), case management, psychiatric evaluations, medication management, and potentially crisis intervention and prevention programs. However, the specific details of the services and the precise KPIs are not provided in the summary data. A thorough review of the contract statement of work (SOW) and performance work statement (PWS) would be necessary to identify the exact services and the metrics used to evaluate the contractor's performance. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure implies that performance against these KPIs directly influences the contractor's fee.

How does the $23.9 million contract value compare to other federal spending on similar community mental health programs for children and families?

Comparing the $23.9 million contract value requires context regarding the contract's duration and scope. Awarded in 2005 and ending in 2011, this represents an average annual spend of approximately $4 million. Federal spending on child and adolescent mental health is substantial, distributed across various agencies like HHS (SAMHSA, NIH, ACF), DoD, and VA, and through programs like Medicaid. While $4 million annually might seem moderate for a large-scale national initiative, it could represent a significant investment for a specific region or a highly specialized program. Benchmarking requires identifying contracts with similar service offerings, target populations, and geographic coverage. Without such direct comparisons, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract represents high or low spending relative to peers.

What is the track record of Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. in delivering government contracts, particularly in the healthcare and mental health sectors?

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. (WRMA) has a history of performing government contracts, primarily serving federal agencies. Their expertise often lies in areas such as program evaluation, management consulting, and technical assistance, frequently within the health and human services domains. While the provided data confirms WRMA as the awardee for this specific mental health services contract, a comprehensive assessment of their track record would involve reviewing their performance on other federal contracts, including past performance evaluations, any reported issues or successes, and their experience with similar populations and service types. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contract award databases would offer a broader view of their government contracting history.

Given the 'limited' competition ('FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES'), what are the potential risks associated with this procurement method for taxpayers?

The primary risk to taxpayers associated with 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is the potential for reduced price competition. When specific sources are excluded, the bidding pool shrinks, which can lessen the pressure on bidders to offer the most competitive pricing. This could lead to higher contract costs than might be achieved in a truly open market. Additionally, excluding sources might inadvertently exclude highly capable providers who could offer innovative or more cost-effective solutions. The justification for excluding sources is critical; if the exclusions were not well-founded or necessary, it represents a missed opportunity for optimal value for taxpayer dollars. Robust cost analysis and negotiation by the government are essential to mitigate these risks.

What are the implications of the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type on cost control and contractor performance for this mental health program?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure aims to balance cost reimbursement with performance incentives. The contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs incurred, plus a base fee (typically a small percentage of estimated costs) and an award fee. The award fee is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria. For this mental health program, CPAF incentivizes WRMA to deliver high-quality services to earn the maximum award fee. However, it also requires diligent government oversight to ensure that costs remain reasonable and that the award fee is only granted for exceptional performance. If oversight is weak, the contractor might be less motivated to control costs, potentially leading to higher overall expenditures than a fixed-price contract, while still achieving performance goals.

How has federal spending on community mental health services for children evolved since this contract was awarded in 2005?

Federal spending on community mental health services for children has generally seen an increasing trend since 2005, driven by growing awareness of the importance of early intervention, the mental health crisis among youth, and legislative efforts like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which expanded access to behavioral health services. Agencies like SAMHSA have consistently funded programs aimed at improving access to care, prevention, and treatment for children and adolescents. While specific figures fluctuate annually based on appropriations and policy priorities, the overall federal commitment to addressing youth mental health needs has been a growing area of focus, likely resulting in increased overall spending across various programs and initiatives compared to the mid-2000s.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2720 GATEWAY OAKS DIRVE, SACRAMENTO, CA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,946,880

Exercised Options: $23,946,880

Current Obligation: $23,946,880

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline