DOJ's Bureau of Prisons spends $2.5M on monthly cell phone service with Cellco Partnership

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,528 ($2.5K)

Contractor: Cellco Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-04-10

Contract Duration: 191 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MONTHLY CELL PHONE SERVICE

Place of Performance

Location: BASKING RIDGE, SOMERSET County, NEW JERSEY, 07920

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $2,528 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP for work described as: MONTHLY CELL PHONE SERVICE Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the fixed-price nature and duration. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a potentially limited bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are low due to a firm fixed-price contract. 4. Performance context is tied to essential communication services for correctional facilities. 5. Sector positioning is within telecommunications services for government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $2.5M over approximately 191 days suggests a monthly cost of roughly $1.3M. Benchmarking this against similar government contracts for large-scale wireless telecommunications services is challenging without more specific service details (e.g., number of users, data allowances). However, the firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty. The value proposition hinges on the reliability and scope of the service provided to the Federal Prison System.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), suggesting it was likely solicited from a pre-approved list or through a streamlined process. The data indicates only one bid was received, which raises questions about the extent of competition. While SAP can be efficient for smaller procurements, a single bid may limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs than a more broadly competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: A single bid suggests taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing achievable through a wider solicitation process.

Public Impact

Benefits correctional facility operations by providing essential communication services. Services delivered include monthly cell phone access for staff and potentially inmates. Geographic impact is focused on facilities within New Jersey. Workforce implications include ensuring reliable communication for prison staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment.
Lack of detailed service scope makes value assessment difficult.
Reliance on a single vendor could create future dependency.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget predictability.
Contract duration is relatively short, allowing for re-evaluation.
Awarded to a known entity, potentially indicating established service capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the telecommunications services sector, specifically wireless carriers. The market for government telecommunications is substantial, with agencies requiring reliable connectivity for various operations. This contract represents a small portion of overall federal IT and communication spending. Comparable benchmarks would typically involve analyzing per-user costs for similar government-issued mobile plans or bulk wireless service agreements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities. The award was made to Cellco Partnership, a major telecommunications provider, suggesting the primary focus was on securing established service capabilities rather than promoting small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would likely be managed by the Bureau of Prisons contracting officers and program managers responsible for telecommunications within the Federal Prison System. Accountability is tied to the firm fixed-price terms, requiring Cellco Partnership to deliver the specified services. Transparency is moderate, as the contract award is publicly available, but detailed service level agreements and performance metrics may not be readily accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Bureau of Prisons Communications Contracts
Department of Justice Wireless Services
Government Mobile Service Agreements

Risk Flags

Limited competition
Single bid received
Lack of detailed service scope

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $2,528 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP. MONTHLY CELL PHONE SERVICE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CELLCO PARTNERSHIP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Federal Prison System / Bureau of Prisons).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2,528.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-10-01. End: 2026-04-10.

What is the specific breakdown of services included in this monthly cell phone contract?

The provided data indicates 'MONTHLY CELL PHONE SERVICE' but lacks specific details on the service breakdown. This could encompass voice minutes, data allowances, text messaging, and the number of devices or users covered. Without this granularity, it is difficult to assess if the $2.5M award represents a fair price for the actual services rendered. Further clarification from the Bureau of Prisons would be needed to understand the exact scope, such as whether it includes unlimited plans, specific data caps per user, or specialized features required for a correctional environment.

How does the $2.5M contract value compare to historical spending on similar services by the Bureau of Prisons?

To compare this $2.5M contract value to historical spending, one would need to analyze past procurements by the Bureau of Prisons for monthly cell phone services. This would involve searching federal procurement databases for similar contract types, durations, and service scopes. Factors such as inflation, changes in technology, and evolving service needs would need to be considered for a meaningful comparison. A trend analysis could reveal if spending on such services is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and whether this specific award is an outlier or in line with past expenditures.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how is Cellco Partnership's performance being measured?

Key performance indicators for a monthly cell phone service contract typically include network uptime, call clarity, data speeds, customer service response times, and adherence to service level agreements (SLAs). The specific KPIs for this contract would be detailed in the contract's statement of work. Performance measurement would likely involve regular reporting from Cellco Partnership and potentially independent network testing or user feedback from the Bureau of Prisons. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in penalties or contract termination, depending on the terms.

What is the potential impact of relying on a single vendor for essential communication services in federal prisons?

Relying on a single vendor for essential communication services in federal prisons carries several potential impacts. On the positive side, it can simplify management and ensure a consistent service experience. However, it also creates a dependency that can lead to reduced bargaining power in future negotiations and potential vulnerabilities if the vendor experiences service disruptions or financial instability. Furthermore, a lack of competition may stifle innovation and prevent the adoption of potentially more cost-effective or advanced solutions from other providers.

Given the 'COMPETED UNDER SAP' status and single bid, what is the estimated price difference compared to a fully competed contract?

Estimating the precise price difference between a contract competed under SAP with a single bid versus a fully competed contract is inherently speculative without detailed market analysis. However, academic studies and government reports often suggest that full and open competition can yield savings ranging from 10% to 30% or more, depending on the market and the specific procurement. The limited competition here suggests that the Bureau of Prisons may have paid a premium, as potential savings from competitive pressure were not fully realized. The actual difference would depend on the specific market dynamics for wireless telecommunications services in New Jersey.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Wired and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers › Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - END USER

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Verizon Maryland LLC

Address: ONE VERIZON WAY, BASKING RIDGE, NJ, 07920

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,528

Exercised Options: $2,528

Current Obligation: $2,528

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15JPSS21A00000293

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline