Cellco Partnership awarded $5.6M for wireless mobility solutions by Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $561,233 ($561.2K)

Contractor: Cellco Partnership

Awarding Agency: Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

Start Date: 2025-07-15

End Date: 2027-05-06

Contract Duration: 660 days

Daily Burn Rate: $850/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: WIRELESS MOBILITY SOLUTIONS

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20002

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency obligated $561,233.03 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP for work described as: WIRELESS MOBILITY SOLUTIONS Key points: 1. Contract value of $5.6M for wireless mobility solutions. 2. Awarded by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 3. Contract type is Firm Fixed Price. 4. Duration of the contract is 660 days. 5. Competition was full and open. 6. Delivery Order awarded under an existing contract. 7. Service is for wireless telecommunications carriers. 8. Geographic location is District of Columbia.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $5.6 million for wireless mobility solutions appears reasonable given the 660-day duration. Benchmarking against similar contracts for telecommunications services requires access to a broader dataset of comparable awards. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the costs involved, which can lead to better value if the contractor can deliver efficiently. The number of bids received (2) is on the lower side for a full and open competition, which might warrant further investigation into pricing competitiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, only two bids were received. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery, a low number of bidders can sometimes suggest market limitations, contractor capacity issues, or a lack of awareness of the opportunity. The agency should monitor if this limited competition impacts pricing or service innovation over the contract's life.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, aims to secure the best possible pricing and services for taxpayers. The agency's process should ensure that the two bids received were competitive and represented fair market value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, which will receive wireless mobility solutions. The services delivered will support the agency's operational needs through telecommunications. The geographic impact is focused on the District of Columbia. The contract supports the telecommunications sector workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition could indicate potential issues with market reach or contractor interest.
The specific nature of 'wireless mobility solutions' could have varying cost structures, making direct price comparisons difficult without more detail.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a firm fixed-price contract, which helps control costs and provides budget certainty.
Full and open competition was utilized, adhering to best practices for government contracting.
The contract is for essential telecommunications services supporting agency operations.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Telecommunications sector, specifically Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This sector is characterized by rapid technological advancements and significant infrastructure investment. The market size for government telecommunications services is substantial, with agencies relying heavily on reliable and secure mobile communication. This contract represents a portion of the government's overall spending on communication infrastructure and services, aiming to ensure operational continuity for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. The contract was awarded to Cellco Partnership, a major telecommunications provider. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether Cellco Partnership engages small businesses for any part of the service delivery or support.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, though detailed performance metrics are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Telecommunications Services
Wireless Communication Contracts
Agency Operational Support Services

Risk Flags

Low number of bidders for a full and open competition.
Potential for vendor lock-in with a single provider.
Dependence on a single provider for critical communication services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency awarded $561,233.03 to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP. WIRELESS MOBILITY SOLUTIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CELLCO PARTNERSHIP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $561,233.03.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-15. End: 2027-05-06.

What is the track record of Cellco Partnership as a federal contractor, particularly for similar wireless mobility solutions?

Cellco Partnership, operating as Verizon Wireless, has a significant history as a federal contractor. They have been awarded numerous contracts across various federal agencies for telecommunications services, including wireless mobility solutions, data services, and network infrastructure. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing contract databases for on-time delivery, quality of service, and any past performance issues or disputes. A review of their federal procurement history indicates a capacity to handle large-scale government contracts, but specific performance metrics for this particular type of solution would require deeper investigation into individual contract close-out reports and agency performance evaluations.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar wireless mobility solutions awarded to other large telecommunications providers?

Direct price comparison is challenging without access to detailed pricing structures and service level agreements for comparable contracts. However, the firm fixed-price nature of this award suggests that the agency sought to establish a predictable cost. Given that Cellco Partnership is a major provider, their pricing is likely competitive within the market for large-scale enterprise solutions. To perform a robust comparison, one would need to analyze the per-unit costs (e.g., per device, per gigabyte of data) against other awards of similar scope and duration to entities like AT&T or T-Mobile, considering factors like included features, network coverage, and support levels.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how will they be monitored?

Key performance indicators for wireless mobility solutions typically include network uptime, data transmission speeds, service availability, customer support response times, and adherence to security protocols. While not detailed in the award data, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency would establish specific KPIs in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). Monitoring would likely involve regular reporting from Cellco Partnership, periodic performance reviews by the agency's contracting officer's representative (COR), and potentially automated network performance monitoring tools. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contract remedies, including financial penalties or termination.

What is the historical spending pattern for wireless mobility solutions by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns for wireless mobility solutions by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) would require accessing historical contract data for CSOSA. This specific award of $5.6 million over approximately two years provides a data point for current spending. To understand historical patterns, one would need to examine previous contracts for similar services, noting their values, durations, and awarded contractors. This would reveal trends in spending levels, whether the agency has consistently used the same providers, and if the scope of services has evolved over time, indicating potential increases or decreases in demand and associated costs.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single provider (Cellco Partnership) for critical wireless mobility services?

Relying on a single provider like Cellco Partnership for critical wireless mobility services introduces several risks. Foremost is the risk of service disruption due to technical failures, natural disasters, or cyberattacks affecting the provider's infrastructure. Vendor lock-in is another concern, potentially limiting the agency's ability to switch providers or negotiate favorable terms in the future. Dependence on one vendor can also reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs over time or less incentive for the vendor to innovate. Furthermore, a single point of failure could have significant operational impacts on the agency's ability to perform its mission if communication services are compromised.

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 - DELIVERY

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Verizon Maryland LLC

Address: 1 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: $1,523,347

Exercised Options: $561,233

Current Obligation: $561,233

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QTCA20D00B5

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline