JEFO-DALTCP-16-003_SASH_Eval_Part_2_-_Signed.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity (JEFO) Support And Services at Home (SASH) Evaluation: Part 2:

Identification of the agency and contracting activity:

a. Federal agency and contracting activity: HHS

b. Sponsoring organization: ASPE, Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy

c. Project Officer information:

Project Officer name: Emily Rosenoff Killeen

Mailing address: 200 Independence Ave. SW Room 424E.22

E-mail address: Emily.rosenoff@hhs.gov

Telephone number: 202-690-5740

Nature and/or description of the action being approved: Acquisition purpose and objectives:

This task order “Support And Services at Home (SASH) Evaluation: Part 2” will evaluate the SASH intervention through the final years of the extended demonstration. SASH is a subcomponent of a statewide Medicare Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) demonstration. Originally the MAPCP (and SASH) demonstration were scheduled to end December 31, 2014. The original ASPE-HUD SASH evaluation would have evaluated the demonstration through the 2014 sunset. However, CMS has extended the demonstration through the end of 2016. This “SASH Evaluation Part 2” would include the final years of the intervention. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HHS’s Administration for Community Living (ACL) contributed to the original evaluation contract.

Project background:

In 2012, the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), in partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL), awarded an evaluation contract to RTI International to evaluate the Support And Services at Home (SASH) program in Vermont under contract number HHSP23320100021WI Task Order HHSP23337006T. The SASH intervention is part of a larger multi-state Medicare demonstration, the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) demonstration. The MAPCP demonstration was originally scheduled to end December 31, 2014. The original SASH evaluation contract would have followed the demonstration and analyzed claims data through the 2014 sunset. However, CMS extended the Vermont MAPCP program through the end of 2016. Given the timing of the data availability, the first evaluation contract will be able to analyze claims data only through June 2015. This “SASH Evaluation: Part 2” contract will be able to analyze claims data for the entire demonstration period including the last year and a half of the demonstration.

The preliminary implementation findings show that the demonstration has been able to deliver services as planned. Overall, stakeholders have been pleased with the SASH program and anecdotally reported that residents have been benefiting from the intervention. However, the preliminary quantitative findings examining health care utilization and expenditures are complicated. This “SASH Evaluation: Part 2” contract will allow ASPE to further investigate the impacts of the intervention with more years of intervention to consider, and examine the impacts of the intervention when it has been fully operational for a few years. This additional work will allow ASPE to understand the impact of the full 5 years of the demonstration.

ASPE competed the first SASH evaluation contract among the ASPE ID/IQ contractors, and RTI International was selected as the contractor. Only one other firm submitted a proposal for the first evaluation contract, but it was found to be technically unacceptable. The first evaluation contract was for $801,349, and the period of performance is 9/30/2012 to 9/29/2016.

Description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value): [Provide the following information:]

a. Project title: Support And Services at Home (SASH ) Evaluation: Part 2

b. Project description: See attached SOW

Requirement type: [Check the appropriate box]

Research & development (R&D) R & D support services Support services (non-R&D) Supplies/equipment Information technology (IT) Construction Architect-engineer (A & E) services Design-build Other (specify): ____________________

Type of action: [Check the appropriate box]

New requirement

X Follow-on Other (specify): ______________________

Proposed contract/order type: [Check all that apply]

X Firm-fixed-price Other fixed-price (specify, e.g., fixed-price award-fee, fixed-price incentive-fee): __________ Cost-plus-fixed-fee Other cost reimbursement (specify, e.g., cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee): ___________ Time and materials Indefinite delivery (specify whether indefinite quantity, definite quantity, or requirements): ___________ Other (specify): ___________

Completion Form Term form

Acquisition identification number: Specify the requisition number, proposed solicitation number, or other acquisition identification number, if applicable.

d. Total estimated dollar value and performance/delivery period:

$210,000 18 months

Identification of the exception to fair opportunity (see 16.505(b)(2)) and the supporting rationale, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. If the contracting officer uses the logical follow-on exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value): [Check the applicable block below based on the acquisition circumstance and provide supporting rationale immediately below the exception checked.]

(A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

(B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized.

X (C) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

(D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

(E) For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

Any other facts supporting the justification: [Cite any other factors not mentioned earlier in the justification as to why the requirement cannot be competed.]

Statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made:

Official Name & Title Signature Date

Competition Advocate

Head of the Procuring Activity signature(s). [The HPA, if applicable, and the HCA shall indicate review of, and concurrence with, any JEFO over $12.5M, but not exceeding $62.5M3, by providing the information required below and signing in the applicable block.]

Official Name & Title Signature Date

Head of the Contracting

Activity

HHS Senior Procurement Executive signature. [The HHS SPE, upon acceptance of the rationale provided in the JEFO, shall complete the information required below and sign in the block provided as the approving official for any JEFO over $62.5 million4.]

Official Name & Title Signature Date

HHS Senior Procurement

Executive

2 See FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C)(2).

3 See FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3).

4 See FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C)(4).