DOJ awards $3.3M contract for court reporting services to Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,328 ($33.3K)

Contractor: Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2026-04-01

End Date: 2027-03-31

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $92/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: GRAND JURY & DEPOSITION COURT REPORTING

Place of Performance

Location: JOHNSTOWN, CAMBRIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15901

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $33,328 to SARGENT'S COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. for work described as: GRAND JURY & DEPOSITION COURT REPORTING Key points: 1. Contract awarded under Special Acquisition Procedures (SAP), suggesting a streamlined process. 2. The contract is a Time and Materials type, which can pose cost control challenges. 3. Delivery order awarded for a duration of 364 days. 4. The contract is for court reporting and stenotype services. 5. The awardee, Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc., is a single entity. 6. The contract is not a small business set-aside.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount is $3,332,800. Without specific details on the volume of services or hourly rates, a direct value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the Time and Materials pricing model can lead to higher costs if not closely managed. Benchmarking against similar court reporting contracts would be necessary for a more precise evaluation of pricing and value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under SAP (Special Acquisition Procedures), which typically involves a limited number of sources or a simplified acquisition process. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the use of SAP suggests that full and open competition may not have been pursued. This could limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition may mean taxpayers do not benefit from the lowest possible price that could be achieved through a broader bidding process.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice benefits from essential court reporting services, crucial for legal proceedings. These services support the administration of justice by ensuring accurate record-keeping. The contract's geographic impact is likely focused on locations where the Department of Justice requires these services, potentially nationwide. The contract supports the workforce within the court reporting industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials pricing model can lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Limited competition under SAP may not yield the best value for taxpayer dollars.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess service quality and efficiency.

Positive Signals

Award to an established entity suggests potential for reliable service delivery.
The contract duration provides a period of stability for service provision.
The specific nature of the service (court reporting) is critical for legal operations.

Sector Analysis

The court reporting services sector is a niche but essential part of the legal and administrative support industry. This contract falls under professional services, specifically stenographic and court reporting. The market size for such services is driven by the needs of government agencies, law firms, and judicial systems. Benchmarking would involve comparing this award to other government contracts for similar services, considering factors like volume, duration, and pricing structures.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of Justice's contracting and procurement offices. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the Time and Materials contract, including reporting requirements and performance standards. Transparency is dependent on the public availability of contract details and performance data, which may be limited for contracts competed under SAP.

Related Government Programs

Department of Justice Legal Services Contracts
Federal Court Reporting Services
Professional and Administrative Support Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Limited competition may impact price discovery.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $33,328 to SARGENT'S COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.. GRAND JURY & DEPOSITION COURT REPORTING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SARGENT'S COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Offices, Boards and Divisions).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33,328.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-01. End: 2027-03-31.

What is the typical track record of Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. with federal contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. with federal contracts is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their track record, one would need to review past performance evaluations, contract history with federal agencies, and any reported issues or successes. A thorough review would involve searching federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS for previous awards, contract modifications, and any associated performance feedback. Without this historical data, it is difficult to gauge their reliability and past performance in fulfilling government obligations.

How does the $3.3M award compare to similar court reporting contracts awarded by the DOJ or other federal agencies?

A direct comparison of the $3.3 million award for court reporting services requires access to a broader dataset of similar federal contracts. Key comparison points would include the total contract value, duration, scope of services (e.g., number of hours, types of proceedings), and pricing structures (e.g., hourly rates, per-page fees). Contracts awarded under simplified acquisition procedures or for specific delivery orders might have different pricing than those awarded through full and open competition. Benchmarking against contracts with similar service levels and geographic coverage would provide a clearer picture of whether this award represents a competitive price point for the services rendered.

What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for court reporting services?

The primary risk associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for court reporting services is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts pay the contractor for the actual time and materials used. If the scope of work is not well-defined, or if the contractor's efficiency is low, the total cost can escalate beyond initial estimates. For court reporting, this could manifest as extended hours billed for proceedings, or unforeseen material costs. Effective oversight, clear task definitions, and robust monitoring of labor hours and material usage are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives good value.

How effective are Special Acquisition Procedures (SAP) in ensuring competitive pricing for services like court reporting?

Special Acquisition Procedures (SAP) are designed to streamline the procurement process for certain types of acquisitions, often those below specific dollar thresholds or for specific circumstances. While SAP can increase efficiency and reduce administrative burden, its effectiveness in ensuring competitive pricing can vary. SAP may involve a limited number of solicited sources or simplified evaluation criteria, which might not always yield the same level of price competition as a full and open solicitation. The extent to which SAP promotes competitive pricing depends on the specific procedures used, the number of qualified sources available and solicited, and the agency's diligence in seeking the best value within the SAP framework.

What is the historical spending pattern for court reporting services within the Department of Justice?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for court reporting services within the Department of Justice (DOJ) would require examining procurement data over several fiscal years. This would involve identifying all contracts awarded for court reporting, stenography, and related transcription services, noting the total amounts obligated, the types of contracts (e.g., IDIQ, delivery orders), and the agencies or offices within the DOJ that utilized these services. Understanding historical spending can reveal trends in contract values, identify periods of increased or decreased demand, and highlight any shifts in procurement strategies, such as a move towards or away from specific contract types or competition levels.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Business Support Services › Court Reporting and Stenotype Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 210 MAIN ST, JOHNSTOWN, PA, 15901

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,328

Exercised Options: $33,328

Current Obligation: $33,328

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15JA0522D00000107

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline