DOJ's FBI awarded $11.9M for wireless telecom, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,971,525 ($12.0M)

Contractor: Cricket Communications, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2008-04-25

End Date: 2008-08-30

Contract Duration: 127 days

Daily Burn Rate: $94.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EQUIPMENT

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92121

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $12.0 million to CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for work described as: EQUIPMENT Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its short duration and single awardee. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for inflated pricing and reduced innovation. 3. The fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty but may not reflect true market value. 4. Performance was concentrated in California, with limited insight into broader geographic impact. 5. The absence of small business considerations warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The $11.9 million award for 127 days of service, or approximately $94,264 per day, seems high for wireless telecommunications carriers. Without specific service details, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the lack of competition and the 'NOT COMPETED' status suggest that the government may not have secured the best possible price or value for this equipment. The contract's value proposition is unclear given these factors.

Cost Per Unit: Approximately $94,264 per day (based on total award and duration)

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. The data indicates 'NOT COMPETED,' suggesting that only one vendor was considered or approached. This lack of competition significantly limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or negotiate favorable terms, potentially leading to higher costs and less innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers likely paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure to offer the best price.

Public Impact

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was the primary beneficiary of this contract. The contract provided wireless telecommunications services, crucial for law enforcement operations. Services were primarily delivered in California, impacting regional FBI operations. The contract's focus on equipment suggests a potential impact on the technological capabilities of the FBI workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about fair pricing and potential overspending.
The sole-source nature limits transparency and accountability in the procurement process.
Absence of small business considerations may exclude valuable market participants.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under a firm fixed-price structure, providing some cost predictability.
The contract was awarded to CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a known entity in the telecommunications sector.

Sector Analysis

The wireless telecommunications sector is a dynamic and essential part of the U.S. economy, supporting a wide range of government and commercial activities. This contract falls under the 'Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)' industry code (NAICS 517210). While specific market size data for this niche is not provided, the broader telecommunications market is vast. This contract represents a small slice of federal spending in this area, likely supporting specific operational needs rather than broad infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-aside provisions, nor is there information suggesting subcontracting goals for small businesses. The sole-source nature of the award further limits opportunities for small businesses to participate. This approach may not leverage the full capabilities of the small business ecosystem in the telecommunications sector.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this specific contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, as a federal contract, it would typically fall under the purview of the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General for audits and investigations. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, making detailed public assessment of accountability challenging.

Related Government Programs

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Communications Contracts
Department of Justice Wireless Services Procurement
Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing.
Lack of detailed service description hinders value assessment.
High daily cost warrants further investigation into market rates.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $12.0 million to CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.. EQUIPMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-04-25. End: 2008-08-30.

What specific wireless telecommunications services were provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'EQUIPMENT' related to 'Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)' under NAICS code 517210. However, the specific nature of the equipment or services (e.g., mobile phones, data plans, network infrastructure, satellite communication devices) is not detailed. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to fully assess the necessity and value of the award. Further documentation would be required to understand the precise operational requirements met by this procurement.

Why was this contract not competed, and were there any justifications for a sole-source award?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source award. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can satisfy the agency's needs, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. Without further documentation from the Department of Justice or the FBI, the specific justification for bypassing the competitive bidding process remains unknown. This lack of competition is a significant concern regarding potential value for taxpayer money.

How does the daily cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar wireless telecommunications equipment or services?

The contract awarded $11,971,524.52 over a duration of 127 days, resulting in an approximate daily cost of $94,264. Benchmarking this figure against industry standards for wireless telecommunications equipment or services is challenging without knowing the exact nature of the 'EQUIPMENT' procured. However, this daily rate appears substantial. Typical enterprise mobile device plans or basic network services would likely cost significantly less per day. If the award covered complex infrastructure or specialized equipment, the cost might be justifiable, but the limited information and sole-source nature raise doubts about whether a competitive market would have yielded a lower daily rate.

What is the track record of CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. in fulfilling federal contracts, particularly for the FBI or DOJ?

CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. has been awarded this contract by the Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation. Information regarding their broader track record with federal contracts, especially with the FBI or DOJ, is not detailed in the provided data snippet. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported issues or successes in fulfilling government requirements. Without this context, it's difficult to gauge their reliability and past performance in serving federal agencies.

What were the specific performance expectations and metrics for this contract?

The provided data does not include details on specific performance expectations, metrics, or deliverables for this contract. As a sole-source award for 'EQUIPMENT,' the primary expectation would likely be the timely delivery and functionality of the procured items. However, without defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs), it is difficult to objectively assess whether the FBI received adequate value or met its operational needs effectively through this procurement. Standard contract oversight would typically involve monitoring adherence to agreed-upon performance standards.

What is the historical spending pattern for wireless telecommunications equipment by the FBI or DOJ, and how does this award compare?

The provided data snippet focuses on a single contract awarded in 2008. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze a broader dataset encompassing multiple years and various contracts for wireless telecommunications equipment and services by the FBI and the Department of Justice. This specific $11.9 million award, especially given its short duration and sole-source nature, would need to be compared against similar procurements to determine if it represents an outlier, a trend, or a reasonable expenditure within the agency's overall budget for such needs.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leap Wireless International Inc (UEI: 038074188)

Address: 10307 PACIFIC CNTR CT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,971,525

Exercised Options: $11,971,525

Current Obligation: $11,971,525

Timeline