DOJ's $29.4M Prescription Dispensing System Purchase Order awarded to ScriptPro USA Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,377 ($29.4K)

Contractor: Scriptpro USA Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $81/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING SYSTEM FIRM FIXED PRICE

Place of Performance

Location: MISSION, JOHNSON County, KANSAS, 66202

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $29,377.2 to SCRIPTPRO USA INC for work described as: PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING SYSTEM FIRM FIXED PRICE Key points: 1. The contract is a firm-fixed-price purchase order, indicating a defined cost for the specified goods or services. 2. Awarded as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP', suggesting it may not have undergone full and open competition. 3. The duration of the contract is 364 days, suggesting a short-term need or a pilot program. 4. The primary contractor, ScriptPro USA Inc., is a known entity in the healthcare technology sector. 5. The contract falls under the NAICS code 811210 for Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance. 6. The award is a Purchase Order, a common instrument for acquiring goods and services.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The firm-fixed-price nature provides cost certainty for the government, but the absence of competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price. Further analysis would require comparing this price to similar systems or previous procurements by the Bureau of Prisons or other federal agencies.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was not competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), which typically implies a limited competition or a sole-source justification. The specific details of why it was not fully competed are not provided, but this approach can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully open solicitation.

Taxpayer Impact: A lack of robust competition means taxpayers may not be benefiting from the most cost-effective solution available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are inmates within the Federal Prison System, who will receive prescription medications through an updated dispensing system. The service delivered is the provision and likely maintenance of a prescription dispensing system for correctional facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kansas (ST: KS, SN: KANSAS), where the system will be deployed or managed. This contract supports the operational efficiency of the Bureau of Prisons' healthcare services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of full and open competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
Limited contract duration might necessitate future procurements, incurring additional administrative costs.
Reliance on a single award without competitive benchmarking raises questions about long-term value.
The specific nature of 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' needs further clarification to understand the competitive landscape.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract supports essential healthcare services for federal inmates.
The award is to an established contractor in the relevant field.

Sector Analysis

The market for healthcare technology, specifically pharmacy and medical equipment, is robust. Prescription dispensing systems are critical for efficient and accurate medication management in healthcare settings, including correctional facilities. The Bureau of Prisons, as a large federal agency, represents a significant customer for such systems. Benchmarking would involve comparing this contract's value and terms to similar systems procured by other correctional systems or large healthcare providers.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (SB: false) and set-asides (SS: false) were not factors in this specific award. This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within this award. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular transaction.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Justice's Federal Prison System / Bureau of Prisons. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified system within the agreed cost. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award; further details on the justification for not competing would enhance oversight assessment. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Prison System Healthcare Services
Bureau of Prisons Pharmacy Operations
Medical Equipment Procurement Federal
Prescription Dispensing Technology

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Transparency
Sole Source Justification Unclear

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $29,377.2 to SCRIPTPRO USA INC. PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING SYSTEM FIRM FIXED PRICE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCRIPTPRO USA INC.

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 $29,377.2.

What is the period of performance?

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

What is the track record of ScriptPro USA Inc. with the federal government, particularly the Department of Justice?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess ScriptPro USA Inc.'s track record with the federal government. Specifically, examining past awards, contract performance evaluations (if available), and any history of disputes or contract modifications would provide insight. For the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons, understanding if they have previously contracted with ScriptPro for similar systems, and the outcomes of those contracts, is crucial. A positive history of performance, timely delivery, and adherence to specifications would indicate lower risk for this current award. Conversely, any past issues could signal potential risks that need careful monitoring.

How does the $29.4 million price for this prescription dispensing system compare to similar contracts or market rates?

Benchmarking this $29.4 million contract requires detailed comparison with similar prescription dispensing systems procured by other federal agencies, state correctional facilities, or large hospital networks. Factors such as system capacity, features (e.g., automation, security, reporting capabilities), software integration, and included maintenance/support services must be considered. Without this comparative data, it is difficult to ascertain if the price represents good value for money. The fact that it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' further complicates direct price comparison, as competitive solicitations often drive prices down. A thorough analysis would involve identifying comparable systems and their acquisition costs over the past few years.

What are the primary risks associated with a 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' award for a critical system like prescription dispensing?

The primary risks associated with a 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' award include potential overpayment due to lack of price competition, limited innovation from the vendor as there is no pressure to offer the best solution, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. For a critical system like prescription dispensing, risks also extend to potential disruptions in service if the chosen vendor underperforms or faces financial difficulties, as there was no vetting through a competitive process to ensure robust capabilities. Furthermore, it may signal a missed opportunity to leverage market competition to secure advanced features or more cost-effective solutions. The government might also be locked into a vendor without exploring potentially superior alternatives.

How effective is the Bureau of Prisons likely to be in managing this contract to ensure program effectiveness?

The effectiveness of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in managing this contract hinges on several factors. The BOP's established procurement and contract management processes, coupled with the expertise of its contracting officers and technical monitors, are key. Given the firm-fixed-price nature, the BOP's primary role will be to ensure the contractor meets all performance requirements and delivery schedules. Regular monitoring, clear communication, and prompt resolution of any issues will be critical. The BOP's historical experience with similar technology procurements and its internal oversight mechanisms will also play a significant role in ensuring the program's effectiveness and the successful deployment of the prescription dispensing system.

What are the historical spending patterns for prescription dispensing systems within the Department of Justice or Bureau of Prisons?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for prescription dispensing systems within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and specifically the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is essential for context. This would involve examining past contracts for similar systems, including their value, duration, and procurement methods (competed vs. sole-source). Understanding if the BOP has consistently used ScriptPro USA Inc. or other vendors, and whether spending has increased or decreased over time, can reveal trends. Significant deviations from historical spending levels, especially without a clear justification like expanded scope or inflation, could warrant further investigation. This historical data provides a baseline against which the current $29.4 million award can be evaluated for reasonableness.

What are the implications of this contract being a Purchase Order versus a more formal contract vehicle?

A Purchase Order (PO) is generally a simpler and faster method for acquiring goods and services, often used for smaller value procurements or when specific terms and conditions are well-defined. In this case, a $29.4 million PO suggests it might be used for a large quantity of goods or a service with a clearly defined scope and price. While efficient, POs can sometimes have less stringent oversight and fewer detailed clauses compared to formal contracts, especially if not issued under a pre-existing framework agreement. The 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' designation is particularly relevant here, as it implies the PO was issued outside of standard competitive procedures, potentially limiting the government's leverage and recourse compared to a fully competed, formally contracted effort.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Other Services (except Public Administration) › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance

Product/Service Code: LEASE/RENT EQUIPMENT › LEASE OR RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5828 REEDS RD, MISSION, KS, 66202

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,377

Exercised Options: $29,377

Current Obligation: $29,377

Actual Outlays: $6,911

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline