DOJ's $3.19B wireless contract with Cellco Partnership (Verizon) awarded for 303 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,187 ($3.2K)

Contractor: Cellco Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-07-31

Contract Duration: 303 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: VERIZON WIRELESS FY26 FUNDING REQUEST FOR $1640.00

Place of Performance

Location: ANTHONY, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79821

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $3,187.44 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP for work described as: VERIZON WIRELESS FY26 FUNDING REQUEST FOR $1640.00 Key points: 1. Value for money assessed against market rates for similar wireless services. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a competed award under SAP, suggesting potential for price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and potential for scope creep in wireless services. 4. Performance context relies on Cellco Partnership's ability to deliver reliable wireless connectivity. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader telecommunications services market for government agencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $3.19 billion for a 303-day period appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale government wireless contracts is crucial to determine if the pricing is competitive. The firm fixed-price structure offers some cost certainty, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the quality and reliability of the wireless services provided by Cellco Partnership (Verizon). Without detailed service level agreements and performance metrics, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), which typically involves a streamlined process for smaller value procurements. While competed, the specific number of bidders and the details of the competition are not provided. The use of SAP suggests that the agency sought competitive bids within a defined framework, aiming for a fair price. However, the full extent of competition and its impact on price discovery would be clearer with more detailed procurement documentation.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of SAP for this significant award implies that the agency believes it achieved a competitive price through its process. Taxpayers benefit from the agency's effort to solicit bids, even within simplified procedures.

Public Impact

Federal Prison System personnel across various locations will benefit from enhanced wireless communication capabilities. The contract delivers essential wireless telecommunications services, supporting daily operations and security. Geographic impact is likely nationwide, given the scope of the Federal Prison System. Workforce implications include enabling correctional officers and staff with reliable mobile communication tools.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if service demands exceed initial projections.
Dependence on a single provider for critical communication infrastructure.
Risk of service disruptions impacting essential government functions.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a well-established provider with a track record in telecommunications.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the awarded period.
Competition under SAP suggests an effort to secure favorable pricing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the telecommunications sector, specifically wireless carrier services. The market for government wireless services is substantial, with agencies relying heavily on providers like Cellco Partnership (Verizon) for mission-critical communications. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal contracts for similar wireless solutions, considering factors like user base, data requirements, and service level agreements.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans was not provided in the data. As this is a large contract potentially awarded under SAP, it's possible that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but this would require further investigation into the contract's specific terms and conditions.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight of this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program managers within the Bureau of Prisons. Accountability measures would be tied to the service level agreements and performance metrics outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance data may be less accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Bureau of Prisons Communications Contracts
Department of Justice Wireless Services
Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) for Telecommunications

Risk Flags

High contract value for a short duration
Potential for service disruptions impacting critical operations
Reliance on a single provider for essential communications

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $3,187.44 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP. VERIZON WIRELESS FY26 FUNDING REQUEST FOR $1640.00

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 $3,187.44.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-10-01. End: 2026-07-31.

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

Analyzing historical spending patterns for wireless services by the Federal Prison System is crucial for understanding the context of this $3.19 billion request. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of expenditure. Typically, agencies aim to maintain or reduce spending through competitive contracting. A review of past contracts, including their value, duration, and the providers involved, would reveal trends in service utilization and cost. For instance, if previous contracts were significantly smaller or for shorter durations, this current request might indicate an expansion of services or a price increase. Conversely, if historical spending has been consistently high, this contract might represent a continuation of established service levels. Understanding these patterns helps in evaluating the reasonableness of the current funding request and identifying potential areas for cost savings in the future.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to market rates for similar government wireless services?

A detailed comparison of the per-unit cost for this contract against market rates for similar government wireless services is essential for assessing value for money. Since the provided data does not include specific per-unit metrics (e.g., cost per user, cost per gigabyte of data), this analysis would require access to the contract's detailed pricing structure and service level agreements. Market rates can be benchmarked against other federal contracts awarded under similar conditions (e.g., firm fixed-price, full and open competition) or against commercial price lists from major wireless carriers for enterprise-level services. Factors such as the number of users, data allowances, geographic coverage requirements, and included features (like international roaming or specific security protocols) significantly influence per-unit costs. If this contract's per-unit costs are higher than comparable benchmarks, it could indicate a lack of sufficient competition or less favorable negotiation by the agency.

What is Cellco Partnership's (Verizon's) track record with large federal wireless contracts?

Cellco Partnership, operating as Verizon, has a significant track record with large federal wireless contracts. As one of the major telecommunications providers in the United States, Verizon consistently secures substantial government contracts across various agencies. Their experience typically includes providing a wide range of wireless services, from basic voice and data plans to more complex solutions involving mobile device management, secure communications, and specialized network services. Assessing their track record involves reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented instances of contract disputes or penalties, and their ability to meet service level agreements on previous large-scale deployments. A history of successful contract performance, timely delivery, and effective issue resolution generally indicates a lower risk for new contracts. Conversely, any significant past performance issues would raise concerns about the reliability and cost-effectiveness of awarding them another large contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for wireless services of this magnitude?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for wireless services of this magnitude, like the $3.19 billion award to Cellco Partnership, presents specific risks. While FFP contracts offer cost certainty to the government by fixing the price regardless of the contractor's actual costs, they can shift risk to the contractor. If the contractor underestimates the costs associated with providing the services (e.g., due to unforeseen network demands, increased operational expenses, or technological changes), they may incur losses. Conversely, if the contractor significantly overestimates costs, the government may end up paying a premium. For wireless services, risks include potential scope creep if the agency's needs evolve beyond the initial contract scope, leading to change orders that could increase the overall cost. Additionally, if the contractor faces significant technical challenges or service disruptions, the FFP structure might disincentivize them from investing additional resources beyond what is contractually required to resolve issues promptly, potentially impacting service quality.

How does the duration of this contract (303 days) impact its overall value and risk profile?

The duration of this contract, approximately 303 days (ending July 31, 2026), is relatively short for a contract valued at $3.19 billion. This short duration, coupled with a high value, suggests a potentially high monthly or daily expenditure rate. From a risk perspective, a short duration might indicate a bridge contract, a specific project-based need, or an interim solution while a longer-term strategy is developed. It could also imply that the agency anticipates significant changes in technology or service requirements in the near future. For the contractor, a short duration might necessitate rapid deployment and service provisioning. For the government, it offers flexibility to re-evaluate needs and re-compete services sooner, potentially capturing new market innovations or better pricing. However, it also means that the administrative overhead of contract management and potential re-competing occurs more frequently.

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: $3,187

Exercised Options: $3,187

Current Obligation: $3,187

Actual Outlays: $1,131

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15JPSS21A00000293

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline