DOJ's $47.2M AT&T wireless contract awarded to ATT MOBILITY LLC for U.S. Marshals Service

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,209 ($47.2K)

Contractor: ATT Mobility LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2022-11-03

End Date: 2026-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,366 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IOD/TOG-VSU- FY23-26 AT&T PREMIERE

Place of Performance

Location: SPRINGFIELD, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22152

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $47,209.24 to ATT MOBILITY LLC for work described as: IOD/TOG-VSU- FY23-26 AT&T PREMIERE Key points: 1. Contract awarded via a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, indicating a pre-negotiated framework. 2. The contract spans over three years, from late 2022 to mid-2026. 3. Services are for wireless telecommunications, a critical infrastructure component for federal agencies. 4. The award was made under full and open competition. 5. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which helps in budget predictability. 6. The contractor, ATT MOBILITY LLC, is a major player in the telecommunications sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of $47.2 million over approximately three years for wireless telecommunications services appears reasonable given the scale of the U.S. Marshals Service. Benchmarking against similar large-scale federal wireless contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure offers cost certainty, which is a positive indicator for efficient spending. However, without detailed service level agreements and usage data, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation implies a competitive process designed to solicit the best offers. This approach generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government compared to limited or sole-source procurements.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation among vendors.

Public Impact

The U.S. Marshals Service benefits from reliable and potentially cost-effective wireless communication services. This contract supports the operational needs of a critical law enforcement agency. The services are likely utilized across various geographic locations where the Marshals Service operates. The contract ensures that federal law enforcement personnel have the necessary communication tools to perform their duties.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if renewal terms are not carefully managed.
Reliance on a single large telecommunications provider could pose risks if service disruptions occur.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides budget certainty.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
Long-term contract provides stability for essential communication services.

Sector Analysis

The telecommunications sector is a mature and highly competitive market. Federal agencies are significant consumers of wireless services, often leveraging large contracts with major providers like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Spending in this sector is driven by the need for ubiquitous connectivity, data services, and secure communication channels for government operations. This contract fits within the broader category of federal IT and communication infrastructure spending, which consistently ranks among the largest categories of government procurement.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As a large contract awarded to a major telecommunications provider, it is unlikely to directly benefit small businesses through set-asides. However, ATT MOBILITY LLC may engage small businesses as subcontractors, though this information is not detailed in the award data. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting opportunities are created.

Oversight & Accountability

As a BPA Call, the underlying BPA likely has established oversight mechanisms. The contract is firm fixed price, which inherently limits cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through federal procurement databases like FPDS. Oversight would typically involve contract officers, program managers within the U.S. Marshals Service, and potentially Inspectors General if performance issues or financial irregularities arise. Regular performance reviews and adherence to service level agreements are key accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
Other Federal Agency Wireless Contracts
Department of Defense Telecommunications Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost inefficiencies if usage fluctuates significantly from initial estimates under FFP.
Reliance on a single provider for critical communication infrastructure.
Lack of specific bidder numbers limits assessment of competitive intensity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $47,209.24 to ATT MOBILITY LLC. IOD/TOG-VSU- FY23-26 AT&T PREMIERE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ATT MOBILITY LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (U.S. Marshals Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $47,209.24.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-11-03. End: 2026-07-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for wireless services by the U.S. Marshals Service?

Analyzing historical spending for wireless services by the U.S. Marshals Service would provide crucial context for the current $47.2 million award. This involves examining previous contracts, their values, durations, and the incumbent providers. Understanding trends in spending, such as increases or decreases in service costs, changes in technology adopted, or shifts in vendor relationships, can reveal whether the current contract represents a continuation of established patterns, a significant deviation, or an improvement in cost-effectiveness. For instance, if past contracts were significantly smaller or more expensive per user, this current award might indicate favorable negotiation or market conditions. Conversely, a substantial increase in spending could warrant further investigation into the scope of services or potential price inflation.

How does the per-user cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar federal agencies?

To assess the value for money, a comparison of the per-user cost of this contract against industry benchmarks for federal agencies of similar size and mission is essential. This involves calculating the average cost per user by dividing the total contract value by the estimated number of users within the U.S. Marshals Service. These benchmarks can be derived from publicly available data on other large federal wireless contracts, industry reports, or analyses by government oversight bodies. If the per-user cost is significantly higher than benchmarks, it could indicate potential overspending or a need for renegotiation. Conversely, a cost below the benchmark might suggest a favorable deal for the government. Factors like included features, data allowances, and service level agreements must be considered for an accurate comparison.

What are the specific performance metrics and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract?

The effectiveness and value of this $47.2 million wireless contract hinge on the specific performance metrics and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) established between the Department of Justice and ATT MOBILITY LLC. These SLAs typically define expectations for network uptime, data speeds, call quality, customer support response times, and security protocols. Robust SLAs with clear, measurable metrics and defined penalties for non-compliance are critical for ensuring the U.S. Marshals Service receives the quality of service required for its operations. Without access to these specific terms, it's difficult to fully evaluate the contract's performance potential and hold the contractor accountable for delivering promised services, thereby impacting the overall assessment of value and risk.

What is the track record of ATT MOBILITY LLC in fulfilling large federal telecommunications contracts?

Evaluating the track record of ATT MOBILITY LLC in fulfilling large federal telecommunications contracts is crucial for assessing the risk and reliability associated with this $47.2 million award. This involves reviewing past performance data, including contract completion timeliness, quality of service, adherence to SLAs, and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Information from sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) can provide insights into their past performance ratings. A history of successful contract execution suggests a lower risk of performance issues, while a pattern of deficiencies might raise concerns about the agency's ability to meet its operational needs. Understanding their experience with similar-sized federal agencies is particularly relevant.

Are there any potential risks associated with the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type for these wireless services?

While a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type, like the one used here, offers budget certainty by fixing the total cost, there can be risks associated with it, particularly for evolving services like wireless telecommunications. If the scope of services or the number of users changes significantly during the contract period (November 2022 - July 2026), the FFP structure might lead to inefficiencies. For example, if usage increases dramatically, the government might be paying a premium for unused capacity, or conversely, if usage decreases, the contractor might be less incentivized to offer cost reductions. Furthermore, if the contract doesn't adequately account for technological advancements or unforeseen service demands, the agency might face challenges in adapting without incurring additional costs or entering into new contract actions.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tyto Athene, LLC

Address: 1025 LENOX PARK BLVD NE, ATLANTA, GA, 30319

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,652

Exercised Options: $47,548

Current Obligation: $47,209

Actual Outlays: $20,753

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15F06720A0001516

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline