GSA's $12.7M Verizon contract for telecommunications services awarded in 2002, ending in 2011

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,731,913 ($12.7M)

Contractor: Verizon Federal Incorporated

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2002-02-02

End Date: 2011-06-30

Contract Duration: 3,435 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19107

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $12.7 million to VERIZON FEDERAL INCORPORATED for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's long duration suggests a need for stable, long-term telecommunications infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure likely provided cost certainty for the government. 4. Performance occurred over a decade ago, limiting direct comparison to current market conditions. 5. The contract's value is modest in the context of federal telecommunications spending. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, suggesting it was not a primary goal for this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and the lack of specific service details. The total award of $12.7 million over approximately 9.5 years averages to about $1.34 million annually. Without knowing the scope of services (e.g., voice, data, internet bandwidth), it's difficult to compare pricing to similar contracts or market rates from that era. The firm-fixed-price type suggests the government aimed for predictable costs, but the overall value proposition is obscured by time and limited data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' implying that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach is generally favored for maximizing competition and achieving the best value. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition suggests a potentially robust bidding process, which should theoretically lead to competitive pricing. However, the long duration of the contract might have influenced the number of initial bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation, leading to better value for government spending.

Public Impact

Federal agencies utilizing General Services Administration (GSA) managed telecommunications services benefited from this contract. The contract provided essential telecommunications infrastructure and services to support federal operations. The geographic impact was likely nationwide, supporting federal presence across various locations. The contract supported the telecommunications workforce, including installation, maintenance, and support personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The contract's age makes it difficult to assess current relevance and potential for technological obsolescence.
Lack of detailed performance metrics or outcome data hinders a comprehensive assessment of effectiveness.
The long contract duration might have limited opportunities for adopting newer, potentially more cost-effective technologies during its term.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a structured and competitive procurement process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the government.
The contract was managed by GSA, a central procurement authority, implying adherence to established federal acquisition regulations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the telecommunications sector, a critical component of federal IT infrastructure. The federal government is a significant consumer of telecommunications services, with spending often consolidated through agencies like GSA to leverage economies of scale. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing annual federal outlays for network services, circuits, and voice/data solutions, which often run into billions of dollars annually across various contract vehicles.

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 likely aimed at large telecommunications providers capable of meeting the extensive requirements of federal agencies. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could represent a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in supporting federal telecommunications needs.

Oversight & Accountability

As a GSA contract, oversight would have been managed through GSA's Federal Acquisition Service. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

GSA Schedules Program
Networx Contract
Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS)
Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) related spending

Risk Flags

Technological Obsolescence Risk
Limited Post-Award Competition Visibility
Difficulty in Benchmarking Aged Contracts

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $12.7 million to VERIZON FEDERAL INCORPORATED. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VERIZON FEDERAL INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-02-02. End: 2011-06-30.

What specific telecommunications services were covered under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact telecommunications services procured under this contract. However, given the era (2002-2011) and the provider (Verizon Federal Inc.), it likely encompassed a range of services such as voice (POTS, PBX integration), data transmission (MPLS, Frame Relay, ATM), internet access, and potentially early forms of managed network services. Contracts of this nature often served as foundational elements for agency-wide communication networks, supporting both routine operations and critical mission functions. Without more granular details, the precise service mix remains inferred.

How does the $12.7 million award compare to other federal telecommunications spending during that period?

The $12.7 million award for Verizon Federal Inc. over approximately 9.5 years represents an average annual value of roughly $1.34 million. During the early to mid-2000s, federal telecommunications spending was substantial, often measured in the tens of billions of dollars annually across various agencies and contract vehicles. Major programs like the GSA's previous telecommunications contracts (e.g., FTS2001) and agency-specific procurements involved significantly larger sums. Therefore, this specific Verizon contract, while not insignificant, would be considered a moderate-sized award within the broader landscape of federal telecommunications investments at the time.

What were the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract like this?

Long-duration contracts, such as this one spanning over nine years, carry several potential risks. Technological obsolescence is a primary concern; telecommunications technology evolves rapidly, and a contract signed in 2002 might not have kept pace with advancements by 2011, potentially leading to the government using outdated or less efficient services. Vendor lock-in is another risk, where the government becomes heavily reliant on a single provider, making it difficult and costly to switch, even if better options emerge. Furthermore, market prices for telecommunications services can fluctuate significantly over extended periods. If prices decrease substantially, the government might be overpaying relative to current market rates by the end of the contract term, despite the firm-fixed-price structure.

What does the 'PA' contract status signify?

The contract status 'PA' typically signifies 'Performance Assessment' or 'Performance Award' in federal procurement systems. This designation often indicates that the contract has undergone some form of performance evaluation or that performance metrics are being tracked. It suggests that the government was monitoring the contractor's adherence to the terms and conditions, including delivery schedules, quality standards, and service levels. While the specific details of the performance assessment are not provided, this status implies a level of oversight and accountability was intended or exercised during the contract's lifecycle.

Were there opportunities for competition after the initial award?

The initial award was made under 'full and open competition.' However, the data provided pertains to a single award action with a defined end date. It does not detail whether subsequent modifications, renewals, or successor contracts were also competed. Typically, long-term contracts might include options for extension, which are often exercised if performance is satisfactory and pricing remains competitive. If this contract was modified to extend its duration or scope significantly, the terms under which those modifications were made (e.g., sole-source modification vs. re-competition) would determine the level of subsequent competition. Without further data on contract actions post-award, it's presumed the initial competition set the stage.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1710 H ST NW FL 9, WASHINGTON

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,731,913

Exercised Options: $12,731,913

Current Obligation: $12,731,913

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00T02AHD0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline