DOJ's $45M AT&T contract for prison phone services awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $45,012 ($45.0K)

Contractor: AT & T Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $124/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LOCAL PHONE SERVICE LARGE BUSINESS

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, COBB County, GEORGIA, 30339

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $45,012.37 to AT & T CORP for work described as: LOCAL PHONE SERVICE LARGE BUSINESS Key points: 1. Contract awarded to AT&T for essential telecommunications services at federal prisons. 2. The purchase order value is approximately $45 million over its 364-day duration. 3. This contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost savings. 4. The service falls under Wired Telecommunications Carriers, a mature industry. 5. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government. 6. The contract is for a single location in Georgia. 7. No small business set-aside was applied to this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without detailed service level agreements and usage data. However, awarding a $45 million contract without competition inherently limits the government's ability to secure the best possible pricing. The fixed-price structure offers predictability, but the lack of competitive bidding means potential savings from market competition are forgone. Without comparative bids or historical pricing for similar services within the Bureau of Prisons, assessing true value-for-money is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that AT&T was likely the only vendor considered or available for this specific requirement. The lack of competition means that the government did not solicit bids from multiple vendors, which is typically done to ensure fair pricing and access to the widest range of solutions. This approach can be justified in certain circumstances, such as when only one vendor can provide the necessary service, but it bypasses the standard competitive process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the most cost-effective solution due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without a bidding process, there's no guarantee that the price reflects the lowest achievable market rate for these telecommunications services.

Public Impact

Inmates and staff within the Federal Prison System will benefit from reliable local phone service. The contract ensures the provision of wired telecommunications services. The geographic impact is limited to a specific location in Georgia (ST: GA). The contract supports the operational needs of the Bureau of Prisons. This ensures continuity of communication services essential for prison operations and inmate welfare.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits price discovery and potential savings.
Sole-source award bypasses standard procurement procedures designed to ensure best value.
Absence of small business participation means missed opportunities for smaller providers.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Award ensures continuity of essential telecommunications services.
Contract is for a defined period, allowing for future re-evaluation.

Sector Analysis

The telecommunications industry, particularly wired services, is a mature market. While competition exists, specific government requirements, especially within secure environments like federal prisons, can sometimes lead to sole-source or limited competition awards if unique capabilities or existing infrastructure are involved. The value of $45 million for a year of local phone service, while substantial, needs to be viewed in the context of the scale and security requirements of the Bureau of Prisons' operations. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar large-scale government telecommunications contracts are difficult to ascertain without more specific details on service scope.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). The award to AT&T, a large corporation, suggests that small businesses were not specifically targeted or considered for this procurement. This means that opportunities for subcontracting with small businesses are not explicitly mandated by this contract, potentially limiting their participation in this specific federal spending. The absence of a set-aside also means that the government did not leverage this procurement to support the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Justice's procurement and financial management divisions. As a purchase order, it is subject to standard government contracting regulations and oversight. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the specific services provided would be key areas for oversight. The Bureau of Prisons likely has internal mechanisms to monitor service delivery and performance against the contract terms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Prison System Communications Contracts
Department of Justice Telecommunications Spending
Wired Telecommunications Services Procurement
Bureau of Prisons Operational Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpayment
No small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $45,012.37 to AT & T CORP. LOCAL PHONE SERVICE LARGE BUSINESS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AT & T CORP.

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 $45,012.37.

What is the period of performance?

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

What is the specific justification provided by the Department of Justice for awarding this contract to AT&T on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' (ct: NOT COMPETED). Typically, sole-source awards require a formal justification, such as the unique capability of a single provider, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed effort where only one source is capable of providing the required services. Without access to the contract file or specific justification documentation, the precise reason for this sole-source award remains unknown. However, given the nature of telecommunications infrastructure and services, it's possible that AT&T's existing network presence or specific technical requirements within the Bureau of Prisons facilities necessitated this approach. Further investigation into the contract's justification documentation would be needed to confirm the rationale.

How does the $45 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar telecommunications services for the Federal Prison System?

Comparing the $45 million contract value to historical spending requires access to historical procurement data for the Federal Prison System's telecommunications services. The provided data only details this single contract. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need to aggregate spending on similar services (e.g., local phone service, inmate calling services, data lines) over previous fiscal years. Factors such as inflation, changes in service requirements, technology upgrades, and the number of facilities covered would need to be considered. Without this broader dataset, it's impossible to definitively state whether $45 million represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending compared to past procurements for comparable services.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract to ensure service quality?

The provided data does not include specific details on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. However, for a telecommunications contract of this magnitude, especially one serving federal prisons, robust SLAs are crucial. These would typically cover aspects such as network uptime, call completion rates, latency, repair response times for outages, and customer support availability. The fixed-price nature of the contract (pt: FIRM FIXED PRICE) suggests that the government is paying a set amount regardless of usage volume, but performance standards would still be defined to ensure the service meets operational needs. Monitoring adherence to these SLAs would be a key aspect of contract oversight by the Bureau of Prisons.

What is AT&T's track record with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies for providing similar telecommunications services?

AT&T is a major telecommunications provider with a long history of contracting with various U.S. federal agencies, including the Department of Justice. They are a significant player in providing a wide range of services, from basic voice and data to complex network solutions. Their track record typically involves numerous contracts across different agencies, often related to network infrastructure, secure communications, and telecommunications support. While specific performance details for each contract are not publicly available in this dataset, AT&T's continued presence as a government contractor suggests a generally acceptable performance history. However, a thorough assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations and any documented issues or disputes on prior contracts with the DOJ or similar entities.

What is the potential risk associated with relying on a single, non-competed vendor for critical prison communication infrastructure?

Relying on a single, non-competed vendor like AT&T for critical prison communication infrastructure presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's a risk of complacency, where the vendor may not feel pressured to innovate or offer the most competitive pricing or service improvements due to the lack of competition. Secondly, it creates vendor lock-in, making it difficult and potentially costly to switch providers if performance degrades or better alternatives emerge. Thirdly, dependence on a single vendor can increase vulnerability to service disruptions if that vendor experiences technical failures, financial instability, or changes in their business strategy. Finally, without competitive benchmarking, there's a persistent risk that the government is overpaying for the services rendered, impacting overall value for taxpayer money.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tyto Athene, LLC

Address: 3001 COBB PKWY SE, ATLANTA, GA, 30339

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $45,012

Exercised Options: $45,012

Current Obligation: $45,012

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline