DOJ's $4.98B wireless contract with Verizon awarded for 3 years, impacting federal prisons

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,985 ($5.0K)

Contractor: Cellco Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: VERIZON WIRELESS

Place of Performance

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

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $4,984.86 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP for work described as: VERIZON WIRELESS Key points: 1. Contract value represents significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure for correctional facilities. 2. Sole awardee suggests potential for limited competition, impacting price negotiation. 3. Long-term nature of the contract indicates a sustained need for these services. 4. Focus on federal prisons highlights critical operational requirements for secure communication. 5. Fixed-price contract offers budget certainty but may limit flexibility for evolving needs. 6. Geographic focus on New Jersey for this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $4.98 billion over three years for wireless telecommunications services is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale government wireless contracts is challenging due to the specific nature of correctional facility needs. However, the fixed-price structure provides cost predictability. The value proposition hinges on the reliability and security of the service for critical operations within the Federal Prison System.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), indicating a competitive process for awards below certain thresholds. While the data specifies 'COMPETED UNDER SAP,' it does not detail the number of bidders or the specific solicitation method. The use of SAP suggests that multiple vendors likely had the opportunity to bid, fostering price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Competition under SAP generally leads to more favorable pricing for taxpayers compared to sole-source awards, as it encourages vendors to offer competitive bids.

Public Impact

Inmates and staff within federal prisons benefit from reliable and secure wireless communication services. Essential operational functions within correctional facilities, such as security monitoring and administrative tasks, are supported. The contract has a geographic impact primarily within New Jersey, where the specific award is noted. Workforce implications include the need for technical support and maintenance personnel for the wireless infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in due to the scale and duration of the contract.
Reliance on a single provider for critical communication infrastructure could pose risks if service is disrupted.
Ensuring robust cybersecurity measures are in place for sensitive correctional facility communications.

Positive Signals

Awarding to a major, established provider like Verizon suggests a focus on reliability and service quality.
The competitive bidding process, even under SAP, indicates an effort to secure reasonable pricing.
Fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the agency.

Sector Analysis

The wireless telecommunications sector is highly competitive, with major players like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile dominating the market. Government contracts in this space often involve large sums due to the extensive infrastructure and service requirements. This contract fits within the broader category of telecommunications services supporting government operations, which includes a wide range of needs from basic voice and data to specialized secure networks. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult without specific service details, but large federal wireless contracts can run into billions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) is false for this contract. This suggests that the primary awardee is not a small business, and there is no explicit small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not detailed in this summary. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor actively seeks small business subcontractors for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Justice's procurement and program management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract's performance standards and service level agreements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Bureau of Prisons Communications Contracts
Department of Justice Telecommunications Services
Wireless Services for Government Agencies
Corrections Technology Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to large contract value.
Reliance on a single provider for critical infrastructure.
Cybersecurity risks associated with sensitive data transmission.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $4,984.86 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP. VERIZON WIRELESS

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 $4,984.86.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-10-01. End: 2026-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for wireless services within the Federal Prison System?

Analyzing historical spending requires access to detailed procurement data over multiple fiscal years. Without specific historical data for the Federal Prison System's wireless services, it's difficult to provide a precise pattern. However, government agencies, particularly large ones like the Bureau of Prisons, typically exhibit consistent or increasing spending on telecommunications as technology evolves and operational needs expand. Factors such as inmate population size, security requirements, and the adoption of new communication technologies influence these spending trends. A review of past contracts awarded to various providers for similar services would be necessary to establish a baseline and identify any significant shifts in expenditure.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to similar government wireless contracts?

Determining a precise per-unit cost comparison is challenging without granular data on the specific services rendered (e.g., cost per line, cost per gigabyte of data, cost per device) and the exact scope of services provided across different locations. The contract is a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, suggesting it draws from a pre-established agreement, potentially with negotiated rates. While the total value is substantial, the 'per-unit' cost is highly dependent on the volume and type of services utilized by the Federal Prison System. Benchmarking against other government wireless contracts would require identifying agreements with comparable service levels, user bases, and geographic coverage, which are often not directly comparable due to unique agency requirements.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are critical components of any large telecommunications contract to ensure service quality and reliability. For this contract with Verizon, typical KPIs and SLAs would likely focus on network uptime, call completion rates, data transmission speeds, latency, and response times for technical support and issue resolution. Specific metrics might include a guaranteed network availability percentage (e.g., 99.9%), maximum acceptable call drop rates, and defined timeframes for restoring service after an outage. Adherence to these SLAs often dictates financial penalties or credits for the vendor, ensuring the Federal Prison System receives the contracted level of service essential for its operations.

What is Verizon's track record in providing wireless services to correctional facilities or similar high-security environments?

Verizon, as one of the largest telecommunications providers in the U.S., has a significant track record of serving government agencies, including those with demanding security and reliability requirements. While specific details on contracts exclusively for correctional facilities might be proprietary, Verizon's general capabilities include providing secure, reliable mobile communication solutions. Their network infrastructure is designed for high availability and performance. For high-security environments, Verizon would typically offer enhanced security features, dedicated support, and robust network management to meet stringent operational needs. Their experience with other federal agencies suggests a capacity to handle complex requirements, though the specific nuances of correctional facility operations would necessitate tailored service provisions.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single vendor for critical wireless communications in federal prisons?

Relying on a single vendor like Verizon for critical wireless communications in federal prisons presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch providers if service quality degrades or pricing becomes unfavorable. Secondly, service disruptions, whether due to technical failures, cyberattacks, or natural disasters affecting Verizon's infrastructure, could severely impact prison operations, security, and staff/inmate communications. Thirdly, a lack of ongoing competition could reduce the incentive for the vendor to innovate or offer the most cost-effective solutions over the contract's lifespan. Finally, dependence on one provider might limit the agency's ability to adopt new, potentially superior, technologies offered by competing firms.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › IT AND TELECOM - NETWORK

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: $4,985

Exercised Options: $4,985

Current Obligation: $4,985

Actual Outlays: $1,245

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15JPSS21A00000293

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline