SSJ_ChafeeSOTAII (FINAL 7-9-26) (FE).pdf

[Last updated 4/7/2026.]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of Acquisitions

Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources Office of Mission Acquisition Solutions

Sole Source Justification (SSJ) FAR 8.401 & GSAM/R 538.7104-3(b)(1) GSAM/R 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii)

1. Acquisition Title: Chafee Strengthening Outcomes for Transition to Adulthood II (Chafee SOTA

II)

Division: Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau Contracting Activity: OMAS Author: Kelly Jedd McKenzie, Senior Social Science Research Analyst, COR

2. Nature and/or Description of the Action being Approved: The Children’s Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families requests an order against contract #GS00F009DA with the contractor listed in the table below. This acquisition is conducted under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Program using the ordering procedures established by the General Services Administration found in the General Services Acquisition Manual/Regulation (GSAM/R) at subpart

538.71. The Government projects award for September 2026 using fiscal year 2026 funds.

Contractor: Westat, Inc. 7501 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814 Schedule Contract Number: GS00F009DA Performance Period

Dates/Duration Unit Price/CLIN Multiplier Total

Base Period 48 months $2,528,528 1 $2,528,528 Optional Task 1a 36 months $922,467 1 $922,467 Optional Task 1b 36 months $933,724 1 $933,724 Estimated Total Dollar Value: $4,384,718

3. Description of Supplies and/or Services:

This task order, Chafee SOTA II, expands on the activities that occurred in the prior Chafee Strengthening Outcomes for Transition to Adulthood (Chafee SOTA) project. This initial Chafee SOTA project conducted evaluability assessments with program sites and identified appropriate evaluation methods that addressed common evaluation challenges as well as other relevant ACF funded evaluations. The new task order will expand on these efforts by updating, refining, and implementing the design and analysis plans developed under the previous task order. One critical example of the expansion of the original task order activities that will occur under this task order is site recruitment and engagement. This task order will leverage the site engagement that was conducted during the initial Chafee SOTA project in order to secure agreement and begin data collection and evaluation activities. See Item 4 below for further details.

4. Authority Cited and Rationale: Authority of the FSS Program, Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251, et seq.); Title 40 U.S.C. 501, Services for Executive Agencies, as implemented at FAR 8.401 and GSAM/R 538.7104-3(b)(1).

GSAM/R 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii)- The order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an FSS order already issued on a competitive basis.

Under the previous task order, which was the original Chafee SOTA project, design and analysis plans were developed, and evaluability assessments were completed with program sites, through extensive site engagement. A central task of the new requirement, which is Chafee SOTA II, is to implement these design and analysis plans. Shifting this work to another contractor who was not involved in its’ development or in the engagement with program sites would be costly and inefficient, cause undue delays, and would create a high level of risk that would prevent the Government from receiving the best value or achieving its’ objectives. The delays that would be caused by shifting the work to a new contractor would compromise the Government’s ability to fulfill the legislative requirements to conduct rigorous evaluations of state programs funded under the John H. Chafee Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood that are “innovative or of potential national significance.” In addition to fulfilling statutory requirements, this task order directly addresses the administration’s priorities outlined in Executive Order (EO) 14359, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families (November 13, 2025). Undue delays to the work would limit the ability to inform high level administration priorities. It would require a substantial onboarding process and transition of materials, as well as significant work for a new contractor to gain the necessary expertise with the Chafee program and the work already completed to date.

Rather than being a singular ‘program’, the John H Chafee Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood is a funding stream that provides funds to states, territories and tribes, to address the myriad of human services needs of young people exiting foster care. Consequently, the contractor must have both breadth of expertise to cover employment, housing, education, and other human services, but also depth in the specific uses, limits, and applications of Chafee funding which vary by state and are made more complex depending on local policies and program availability. The intricacies involved in understanding the policy landscape, which is evolving in real time, necessitate that a contractor comes into the new work with deep content knowledge that is not widely available. Additionally, only the incumbent contractor would understand the process undertaken to arrive at these draft design and analysis plans, which is necessary for successful implementation of the plans and avoidance of costly inefficiencies. If the task order were to be awarded to another contractor, they would likely need to duplicate these formative activities conducted to develop the draft design and analysis plans, such as conducting additional active engagement. Additional active engagement would be costly, both in labor hours for contractor and federal staff to develop agendas, protocols, find and invite attendees, and plan for activities, and in honoraria costs for attendees. Additionally, active engagement is a lengthy process and repeating it would likely cause undue burden on participants, as they have already provided comment and input. Finally, such repetition would likely have a negative impact on relationships that have taken time to build during Chafee SOTA, which could lead to higher costs during later phases of the project. Furthermore, during the performance of the previous task order, the incumbent contractor built relationships with sites who would participate in the study that were established after extensive engagement. Requiring a new vendor to develop these relationships anew would be risky and, as recruitment is an ongoing challenge for research contracts, would substantially delay or prevent completion of project objectives. Successful recruitment for research activities, particularly with youth and young adults with experience in the foster care system is dependent on strong relationships that have established trust. These relationships have been built over time with the Chafee SOTA project team. If the contractor were to change, the youth and young adults, as well as the other site teams who were engaged, may not be comfortable proceeding without this trusting relationship, requiring additional time. Even with additional time, it is possible that these experts would not feel comfortable and would not agree to participate. This would require new recruitment, which commonly takes at least 6 months to complete. This time is not built into the project timeline and would threaten completion of project activities. The incumbent contractor has deep expertise in Chafee-funded programs and understands the methods and goals of these evaluations. A new contractor would need to take significant time to familiarize themselves with, and fully understand, the process used to arrive at these evaluation methods and goals. Since the goals of these evaluations and the methods used to accomplish them were developed in close partnership with several organizations and individuals, the process of goal setting and arriving at final evaluation questions and methods is imperative to understand in order to be able to successfully carry out evaluation activities. As such, even once this familiarity is gained, it would be extremely unlikely for a new contractor to replicate the same process that the incumbent contractor underwent with these partners, thus making it unrealistic for them to successfully implement activities to the same degree as the incumbent.

The previous task order was awarded on a competitive basis through the GSA MAS. Awarding the current requirement as a sole source logical follow-on would ensure efficiency and economy, by avoiding significant cost, schedule disruptions, and duplication of work that would be required if transferred to another contractor.

Therefore, in accordance with GSAM/R 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii), the order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an FSS order already issued on a competitive basis.

5. Market Research:

The program office used multiple methods to conduct market research. These included reviewing the results of recent market research that was undertaken to meet a requirement related to child welfare research and evaluation. This market research was conducted for the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse in December 2024, within 18 months of this requirement. Additionally, the program office worked with knowledgeable individuals in the Government and applied personal knowledge in procuring these services. For example, the program office discussed this requirement with individuals with knowledge of both subject matter expertise (The John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood, child welfare), methodological expertise (robust active engagement, innovative learning methods, program evaluation to establish evidence of promise, efficacy, and feasibility), and expertise with managing contracts of similar sizes and complexity. These contracts included: Supporting Evaluations for Youth At-Risk of Homelessness (HHSP233201500035I/75P00119F37041), State Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Policies Database (47QRAA18D00BQ/140D0422F0847), Chafee Strengthening Outcomes for Transition to Adulthood (47QRAD20DU433/75ACF121F80038), Chafee Housing Continuous Learning Design (GS-00F-009DA/75ACF124F80057), and Replication of Recovery and Reunification Interventions for Families (75N98022D00055/6423485). As per RFO FAR 8.104, the program office considered federal supply schedules and commercial services since this requirement could not be fulfilled by mandatory sources listed in RFO FAR 8.101 and 8.102. To perform market research, the program office surveyed the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (GSA) to understand whether any other capable vendors were available.

The successful completion of this project requires deep familiarity with the Chafee program.

Rather than being a singular ‘program’, the John H Chafee Program for Successful Transition to

Adulthood is a funding stream that provides funds to states, territories and tribes, to address the myriad of human services needs of young people exiting foster care. Consequently, the contractor must have both breadth of expertise to cover employment, housing, education, and other human services, but also depth in the specific uses, limits, and applications of Chafee funding which vary by state and are made more complex depending on local policies and program availability. The intricacies involved in understanding the policy landscape, which is evolving in real time, necessitate that a contractor come into the work with deep content knowledge that is not widely available. Additionally, only the incumbent contractor would understand the process undertaken to arrive at these draft design and analysis plans, which is necessary for successful implementation of the plans and avoidance of costly inefficiencies After consulting the MAS and knowledgeable individuals, it was determined that very few vendors have a comprehensive understanding of the program. For example, although the respondents to the Prevention Services Clearinghouse RFI demonstrated solid understanding and expertise with child welfare-related research and reviewing related evidence, no firm demonstrated Chafee-related expertise, and the only contracts mentioned above which include work on Chafee-related activities in their scope of work are held by Westat, Inc., the incumbent. The program office also considered the tasks under the current requirement. For example, a central task of this requirement is to implement existing design and analysis plans developed under the previous contract. Expertise with these existing design and analysis plans only exists with the incumbent contractor. Shifting this work to another contractor who was not involved in its’ development would be costly and inefficient, likely of lower quality, cause undue delays, and would likely not result in the Government receiving best value. It would require a substantial onboarding process and transition of materials, as well as significant work for a new contractor to gain the necessary expertise and to get up to speed on the work already completed to date. Additionally, only the incumbent contractor would understand the process undertaken to arrive at these draft design and analysis plans, which is necessary for successful implementation. Furthermore, the incumbent contractor has existing relationships with sites who would participate in the study that have been established after extensive engagement.

Shifting these relationships to a new contractor would be risky and, as recruitment is an ongoing challenge for research contracts, could substantially delay or prevent completion of project objectives.

To bolster the above research on prior contracts with similar scope, the program office issued an RFI using GSA Market Research As A Service (MRAS). The RFI was posted on 5/1/2026 and closed on 5/7/2026. A total of thirteen (13) businesses responded to the RFI, including six (6) small businesses. None of the six small businesses who responded to the RFI had the capabilities the government requires for this award. The small businesses did not demonstrate any expertise in the content area and did not show evidence that they had prior experience with contracts of similar scope. Therefore, it was concluded that there is not small business capability to complete this work.

Vendors that responded to the RFI were:

Company and

POC

CAGE

L o c at io n

L B

S

W O

E D

W O

H U

B Z o e

V O

(a

Capability/Experience

1 WINTrio LLC mr@wintrio.com

7D8H8 Y Y Y Y High-risk: Capabilities statement makes no mention of the relevant content expertise needed (e.g. youth in foster care), responses do not answer questions on relevant experience

2 integrated Technology Solution Group

LLC

dwethington@inte gratedtechsolution .com

9P3H5 Y Y High-risk: Capabilities statement makes no mention of the relevant content expertise needed (e.g. youth in foster care), responses to questions do not demonstrate relevant experience

Mathematica Inc.

rfpcenter@mathe matica-mpr.com

1EFU9 Y Y Medium-risk: Capabilities statement shows many of the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of working on the project.

Estimated that it would take up to 6 months to form new partnerships with sites.

4 INFO GAIN

CONSULTING

LLC

george@infogainc onsulting.com

7JUK3 Y Y High-risk: Capabilities statement does not demonstrate any past experience working on the topic of youth in foster care.

CAGE

L o c at

W O

B Z o

V O

Capability/Experience

Westat

RodMohadjer@w estat.com

1D075 Y Low-Risk: Capabilities statement describes all the necessary capabilities and the has existing partnerships in place with sites.

BCT Partners, LLC rpinkett@bctpartn ers.com

3VCG3 Y Y Y Y High-Risk:

Capabilities statement does not demonstrate any past experience working on the topic of youth in foster care.

The Urban Institute

FamilyOps@urba n.org

4N012 Y Medium-risk: Capabilities the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of working on the project.

Estimated that it would take up to 6 months to form new partnerships with sites. Also cannot provide commercially

VPD

Government Solutions jburkart@vpdgov.

com

6JQL6 Y Y High-risk: Capabilities statement shows a few of the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of Also cannot provide commercially.

CAGE

L o c at

W O

B Z o

V O

Capability/Experience

Abt Global

Silvio.Guerrero@a btglobal.com

1C0U6 Y Medium-risk: Capabilities the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of working on the project.

Estimated that it would take up to 6 months to form new partnerships with sites.

Research Triangle Institute (dba RTI International) rfi@rti.org

3A730 Y Medium-risk: Capabilities the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of working on the project.

Estimated that it would take up to 6 months to form new partnerships with sites. Also cannot provide commercially.

Caduceus Inc.

clopez@cadgov.c om

5AQA8 Y Y Y High-Risk:

Capabilities statement does not demonstrate any past experience working on the topic of youth in foster care.

Child Trends, Incorporated proposals@childtr ends.org

3V6V4 Y Medium-risk: Capabilities statement shows many of the capabilities needed, however the contractor does not have the existing relationships or history of

CAGE

L o c at

W O

B Z o

V O

Capability/Experience working on the project.

Estimated that it would take 3 months to form new partnerships with sites.

13 Partners in Diversity

3FLK9 Y Y Y High-risk: Capabilities statement does not demonstrate any of the required expertise or past experience working on the topic of youth in foster care.

After review of the capability statements and responses to questions, there were five (5) businesses that were deemed medium-risk and one that was deemed low-risk (the incumbent, Westat). Of the 5 businesses that were deemed medium-risk, two did not provide the service commercially. For the 5 businesses that were deemed medium-risk, there appeared to be relevant content expertise and experience with projects of similar scope, however these businesses estimated that the required partnerships with program sites and youth engagement would take an estimated 3-6 months to establish before data collection could begin. Westat, on the other hand, responded that there would be no delay and that data collection could begin immediately given their existing engagement and partnerships. Though the program office estimates that 3-6 months is likely underestimating the true lead time required to build new partnerships, even a delay of that length would cause significant challenges to the proposed project. This delay would threaten the ability for the project to collect data in enough time to complete all required activities, compromising the overall timeline for the task order. With a delayed data collection, the project would be at high-risk of failure to meet contract objectives. If the task order were to be awarded to another contractor, they would likely need to duplicate the formative activities conducted to develop the draft design and analysis plans, such as conducting additional active engagement.

Additional active engagement would be costly, both in labor hours for contractor and federal staff to develop agendas, protocols, find and invite attendees, and plan for activities, and in honoraria costs for attendees. Additionally, active engagement is a lengthy process and repeating it would likely cause undue burden on participants, as they have already provided comment and input.

Finally, such repetition would likely worsen relationships that have taken time to build during Chafee SOTA, which could lead to higher costs during later phases of the project. Furthermore, during the performance of the previous task order, the incumbent contractor built relationships with sites who would participate in the study that were established after extensive engagement.

Requiring a new vendor to develop these relationships would be risky [SL1.1]and, as recruitment is an ongoing challenge for research contracts, would substantially delay or prevent completion of project objectives. As described earlier, successful recruitment for research activities, particularly with youth and young adults with experience in the foster care system is dependent on strong relationships that have established trust. These relationships have been built over time with the Chafee SOTA project team. If the contractor were to change, the youth and young adults, as well as the other site teams who were engaged, may not be comfortable proceeding without this trusting relationship, requiring additional time. Even with additional time, it is possible that these experts would not feel comfortable and would not agree to participate. This would require new recruitment, which commonly takes at least 6 months to complete. This time is not built in to the project timeline and would threaten completion of project activities. The incumbent contractor has deep expertise in Chafee-funded programs and understands the methods and goals of these evaluations[SL2.1]. A new contractor would need to take significant time to familiarize themselves with, and fully understand, the process used to arrive at these evaluation methods and goals. Since the goals of these evaluations and the methods used to accomplish them were developed in close partnership with several organizations and individuals, the process of goal setting and arriving at final evaluation questions and methods is imperative to understand in order to be able to successfully carry out evaluation activities. As such, even once this familiarity is gained, it would be extremely unlikely for a new contractor to replicate the same process that the incumbent contractor underwent with these partners, thus making it unrealistic for them to successfully implement activities to the same degree as the incumbent. Therefore, Westat is best positioned to successfully complete the requirements without needing to invest significant start up time which could potentially jeopardize data collection efforts. Westat’s existing efforts will maximize continuity across projects and ensure sustained momentum with established relationships with programs and young adults with experience in foster care.

After reviewing this market research, these previous contracts, the results from the MRAS process, and discussing with knowledgeable individuals who have procured such services in the past, it was determined that the only vendor capable of providing these services is Westat, Inc, the incumbent contractor, for two reasons: 1) it is in the best interest of efficiency and economy, with minimal risk of disrupting the continuity of the previous work; Westat is positioned to begin the requirements immediately with little to no startup time, enabling seamless transition from the previous task order to the new task order. The significant start up time estimated by the other vendors could be costly to the government and could put program partnerships at risk; and 2) this vendor possesses critical information in both the subject matter (the Chafee program), and the foundational design and site engagement.

6. Procurement history:

a. Contractor: Westat Contract or Order Number: GS00F009DA/75ACF121F80038 Award Date and Period of Performance: 09/27/2021, POP: 09/27/2021-09/26/2026 Value (including all options): $4,700,707 Competitive Status: Awarded competitively on GSA MAS Authority formerly relied upon if Not Competed: N/A

7. Actions to Foster Competition for Future, Similar Requirements: This action is a one-time requirement and there are no future plans to acquire the same type of services. However, if a similar requirement were to arise in the future, every effort will be made to reduce barriers to competition before advancing any subsequent acquisition for the required services. Market research will be conducted, including the posting of requests for information and/or pre-solicitation notices seeking capability statements from potential offerors.

8. Additional Information or Other Facts: N/A

9. Technical or Requirements Program Management Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

7/9/2026

X Right-Click "Signature Setup"

Signed by: PIV

Kelly Jedd McKenzie Senior Social Science Research Analyst Signature & Date:

10. Best Value Determination: As the contracting officer, I hereby determine that the anticipated price to the Government for this contract action represents the best value for the Government.

In accordance with RFO FSS Ordering Procedures (Subpart 538.71), OMAS will request a quote from the current contractor for the new work requested. Discounts off of GSA FSS pricing will be specifically requested in the RFQ. The ordering activity will evaluate the quote and pricing received and will consider the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed (as well as any ODCs) to perform the specific task being ordered and will determine whether the total price is reasonable.

Specifically, the price reasonableness will be determined by comparing the proposed price against the IGCE and historical pricing, confirming that proposed hourly labor rates are in accordance with the contractor's pre-approved GSA FSS rates listed in their published pricelist, confirming that pricing for ODCs is justified, explained, and reasonable, and that any travel is in accordance with the FTR, and confirming overall price realism. By using these procedures, the ordering activity contracting officer will conclude whether the order represents the best value for the government.

11. Contracting Officer (CO) Certification and Approval: I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. [Always required; CO approval authority is limited to $900 thousand.]

X Right-Click "Signature Setup"

Lisa Slavin Contracting Officer Signature & Date:

[This space intentionally left blank.]

The following Reviews and Approvals will ordinarily begin on a separate page at the end of the justification to allow minor, administrative changes to be made during the review process;

delete any individual reviews/approvals not applicable.

ELEVATED REVIEWS & APPROVALS

12. HHS/OA/ASFR/OMAS Advocate for Competition Review and Approval: I reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports a sole source acquisition. [Division approval authority is limited to $20 million.]

X Right-Click "Signature Setup"

Clint Druk Competition Advocate/ Procurement Analsyt

Signature & Date:

FINAL APPROVAL

13. Insert Division Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) Review and Approval: I reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports a sole source acquisition. [HCA approval authority for actions over $20 million.]

X Right-Click "Signature Setup"

Typed Name Head of the Contracting Activity Signature & Date: