Interior Department's $29.5M National Guard Communications Contract Awarded Non-Competitively

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,470,992 ($29.5M)

Contractor: Sprint Communications CO LP

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2009-04-01

End Date: 2013-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,429 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.6K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: IT

Official Description: COMMUNICATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT NATIONAL GUARD COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22204

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $29.5 million to SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP for work described as: COMMUNICATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT NATIONAL GUARD COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE Key points: 1. The contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, raising questions about potential cost savings through competition. 2. The duration of the contract (1429 days) suggests a long-term need for these communication services. 3. The specific services provided under this contract are crucial for National Guard communications infrastructure. 4. The award to SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP indicates a reliance on a specific vendor for these critical services. 5. The contract's value of approximately $29.5 million warrants scrutiny regarding its overall value for money. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value for money on this contract is challenging due to its non-competitive nature and the lack of detailed cost breakdowns. The award amount of $29.5 million over nearly four years for communication services to support National Guard infrastructure suggests a significant investment. Without comparable competitive bids or detailed cost analysis, it's difficult to definitively assess if this price represents a fair market value or if taxpayers received optimal value. The lack of competition inherently limits the ability to drive down costs through bidding.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach suggests that the agency likely identified a specific need that could only be met by a particular vendor, or that circumstances did not allow for a full and open competition. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or negotiation driven by market forces, potentially leading to higher costs than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services due to the absence of competitive bidding. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to secure the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the National Guard units relying on robust and secure communication infrastructure. The services delivered ensure the operational readiness and effectiveness of the National Guard. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting National Guard operations across various states and territories. The contract supports the technological backbone necessary for modern military and emergency response communications.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potential cost savings.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Long contract duration may indicate a lack of market exploration for more innovative or cost-effective solutions.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to specialized nature of communication infrastructure.

Positive Signals

Ensures critical communication infrastructure for National Guard operations.
Provides continuity of essential communication services.
Supports national security and emergency response capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader telecommunications and IT services sector, which is a significant area of federal spending. The market for communication services supporting critical infrastructure is often characterized by specialized providers and long-term relationships. Federal agencies frequently rely on established vendors for mission-essential systems. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to ascertain without knowing the specific technical requirements, but large-scale communication infrastructure contracts can run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the procurement was either awarded to a large business or that the nature of the services required did not lend itself to a small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans, so the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, but it is unlikely to have directly benefited small businesses through a set-aside.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of the Interior. Accountability measures would be tied to the delivery of services as per the contract's statement of work. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature of the award; details regarding the justification for the sole-source award and performance metrics are not publicly detailed in this data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

National Guard Bureau Communications
Department of Defense Telecommunications Services
Federal Information Technology Contracts
Critical Infrastructure Communications

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of transparency in justification
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $29.5 million to SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP. COMMUNICATION SERVICES TO SUPPORT NATIONAL GUARD COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Departmental Offices).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-01. End: 2013-02-28.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract non-competitively?

The provided data indicates this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER' (ct: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER). Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 outlines the policies for contracting without full and open competition. Common justifications include: only one responsible source exists, or an urgent and compelling need exists that would result in unacceptable delays if a competitive process were followed. Without further documentation from the Department of the Interior, the precise reason for this sole-source award remains unspecified in the available data. This lack of competition limits transparency and the ability to verify if the government obtained the best possible value.

How does the contract value compare to similar communication infrastructure contracts for the National Guard or other federal agencies?

Direct comparison is difficult without specific technical details and service level agreements. However, a $29.5 million contract over nearly four years for communication infrastructure is substantial. Large-scale federal IT and telecommunications contracts can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on scope, duration, and technology. The non-competitive nature of this award makes direct value benchmarking against competitively awarded contracts problematic, as competitive processes typically drive down prices. The absence of a competitive bid means we cannot ascertain if this price is aligned with market rates for similar, albeit potentially less specialized, services.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. Typically, contracts for critical communication infrastructure would include metrics related to network uptime, latency, bandwidth availability, security compliance, and response times for outages or issues. The effectiveness of the contract is measured by the National Guard's ability to maintain reliable and secure communications. Without access to the detailed contract statement of work and performance reports, a quantitative assessment of the contractor's performance against defined standards is not possible.

What is the track record of SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP with federal contracts, particularly in communication infrastructure?

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP (co: SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO LP) has a history of receiving federal contracts. While this specific data point doesn't detail their entire federal contracting history, their involvement in a nearly $30 million contract for National Guard communications suggests they are a recognized provider in this space. A comprehensive analysis would require reviewing their broader contract portfolio, including past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, and their success rate in delivering similar services to various federal agencies. Their ability to secure this non-competitive award implies a level of established capability and potentially a pre-existing relationship or specialized offering.

What is the historical spending trend for similar communication services supporting the National Guard or Department of the Interior?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending trends. To analyze trends, one would need to examine spending data for similar 'COMMUNICATION SERVICES' (d: COMMUNICATION SERVICES) or 'TELECOMMUNICATIONS' (PSC/NAICS codes) contracts awarded to the National Guard or the Department of the Interior over multiple fiscal years. This would involve querying federal procurement databases for related contract actions, identifying the total obligated amounts, and observing patterns of increase or decrease. Understanding historical spending would help contextualize the $29.5 million award and identify potential shifts in procurement strategies or needs.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single vendor for critical communication infrastructure?

Relying on a single vendor for critical communication infrastructure, as suggested by this non-competitive award, carries several risks. These include: vendor lock-in, where switching providers becomes prohibitively expensive or technically difficult; potential for price increases upon contract renewal, as competition is absent; reduced incentive for the vendor to innovate or improve services beyond contractual minimums; and increased vulnerability if the vendor experiences financial difficulties, operational failures, or security breaches. Furthermore, a sole-source award limits the government's leverage in negotiating terms and pricing, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Retail Trade › Electronics and Appliance Stores › Computer and Software Stores

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Brightline Trains Florida LLC (UEI: 690651989)

Address: 12524 SUNRISE VALLEY DR FL 2, RESTON, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,470,992

Exercised Options: $29,470,992

Current Obligation: $29,470,992

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F0329L

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline