District of Columbia Courts awards $12,000 contract for fraud hotline services to AnswerNet Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,000 ($12.0K)

Contractor: Answernet Inc.

Awarding Agency: District of Columbia Courts

Start Date: 2025-04-09

End Date: 2027-04-08

Contract Duration: 729 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: DCSC-25-SAS-54 - BASE YEAR - POP: APRIL 9, 2025 - APRIL 8, 2026 - FRAUD HOTLINE SERVICES. NTE: 6K

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20001

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

District of Columbia Courts obligated $12,000 to ANSWERNET INC. for work described as: DCSC-25-SAS-54 - BASE YEAR - POP: APRIL 9, 2025 - APRIL 8, 2026 - FRAUD HOTLINE SERVICES. NTE: 6K Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential cost savings from competition. 2. The contract value is relatively small, suggesting a focused service requirement. 3. Limited competition may lead to higher prices than if multiple vendors were considered. 4. The service is essential for maintaining integrity and providing a channel for reporting misconduct. 5. The duration of the contract is two years, indicating a stable, ongoing need. 6. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the agency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12,000 over two years for fraud hotline services appears to be a reasonable allocation for a specialized function. However, without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark against market rates or determine if this represents the best value. Similar services for smaller organizations might range from $5,000 to $20,000 annually, depending on call volume and features. The fixed-price structure offers predictability, but the lack of competition prevents a definitive value-for-money assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This means that the District of Columbia Courts selected AnswerNet Inc. without soliciting bids from other potential providers. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities or urgent needs), they limit price discovery and may not result in the most cost-effective solution for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the lowest possible price for these services due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. This could mean that a portion of the allocated funds might have been saved if multiple vendors had the opportunity to compete.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the District of Columbia Courts, which will receive essential fraud hotline services. The service delivered is telephone answering, specifically for fraud reporting, enhancing accountability and integrity within the court system. The geographic impact is limited to the District of Columbia, serving the needs of its judicial branch. There are no significant workforce implications directly tied to this contract, as it procures a service rather than creating new positions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits price discovery and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
Sole-source awards can sometimes indicate a lack of market research or planning.
Absence of competitive benchmarking makes it difficult to assess true value for money.

Positive Signals

The contract provides a dedicated channel for reporting fraud, which is crucial for maintaining trust and integrity.
The fixed-price nature ensures budget certainty for the agency.
The service duration of two years suggests a stable and reliable provision of this important function.

Sector Analysis

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561421 for Telephone Answering Services covers businesses that provide telephonic answering services for their clients. This sector includes call centers and answering services that handle incoming calls, take messages, and relay information. The market for these services is diverse, ranging from small businesses to large enterprises, and is often driven by the need for 24/7 customer support, specialized communication handling, and administrative efficiency. Government agencies frequently utilize such services for public-facing functions, hotlines, and internal support.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded to a small business, nor does it appear to have a small business set-aside component. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data. Therefore, this specific award does not directly impact the small business ecosystem or provide opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the District of Columbia Courts' internal procurement and financial management departments. As a government entity, its spending is subject to audits and reviews by relevant oversight bodies within the District. Transparency is generally maintained through public contract databases, although the limited competition for this specific award reduces the scope for public scrutiny of pricing and vendor selection.

Related Government Programs

District of Columbia Courts Administrative Services
District of Columbia Government Procurement
Fraud Prevention Services
Call Center Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Limited public data on contractor performance history.
Absence of clear performance metrics in award data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

District of Columbia Courts awarded $12,000 to ANSWERNET INC.. DCSC-25-SAS-54 - BASE YEAR - POP: APRIL 9, 2025 - APRIL 8, 2026 - FRAUD HOTLINE SERVICES. NTE: 6K

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ANSWERNET INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: District of Columbia Courts (District of Columbia Courts).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12,000.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-04-09. End: 2027-04-08.

What is the typical cost range for fraud hotline services for organizations of similar size and scope to the District of Columbia Courts?

Determining a precise 'typical' cost range for fraud hotline services without more specific details about call volume, hours of operation, and required features is challenging. However, based on industry benchmarks for telephone answering and call center services, a contract of this nature for a government entity could range significantly. For basic message taking and routing, costs might be in the low thousands annually. For more complex services involving live agents, 24/7 availability, specialized scripting, and data management, costs could escalate to tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Given the $12,000 total award for two years ($6,000 annually), this suggests a relatively limited scope of service, perhaps focused on initial intake or specific reporting channels rather than comprehensive call center operations.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for essential services like a fraud hotline?

Sole-source awards, like the one for AnswerNet Inc., carry several potential risks. Primarily, the absence of competition means the District of Columbia Courts may be paying a higher price than they would in a competitive environment. Without bids from other vendors, it's difficult to ascertain if AnswerNet's pricing is truly market-competitive or if it includes a premium. Furthermore, sole-source awards can sometimes indicate a lack of proactive market research or strategic planning by the agency, potentially missing out on innovative solutions or more cost-effective providers. There's also a risk that the chosen vendor might become complacent due to the lack of competitive pressure, potentially impacting service quality over time. Transparency and accountability can also be diminished, as the justification for bypassing competition needs to be robust.

How does the fixed-price contract type impact the risk and value for the District of Columbia Courts?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type, as used here, shifts most of the risk to the contractor, AnswerNet Inc. The District of Columbia Courts are obligated to pay the agreed-upon price regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This provides excellent cost certainty for the agency, making budgeting straightforward. For the contractor, it incentivizes efficiency to maximize profit. The value proposition for the agency is clear cost predictability. However, if the scope of work is not precisely defined or if unforeseen circumstances arise that significantly increase the contractor's costs, the contractor might seek to reduce quality or scope to maintain profitability, which could indirectly impact the value received by the courts. Conversely, if the contractor is highly efficient, the agency benefits from a predictable cost without needing to monitor their expenses.

What is AnswerNet Inc.'s track record with government contracts, particularly with the District of Columbia Courts?

Information regarding AnswerNet Inc.'s specific track record with government contracts, especially with the District of Columbia Courts, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) and potentially District of Columbia-specific contract repositories to identify past awards, performance reviews, and any history of disputes or issues. Without this external data, it's impossible to assess their reliability, past performance on similar contracts, or their experience serving government clients. This lack of readily available performance history is a gap in fully evaluating the risk associated with this sole-source award.

What is the historical spending pattern for fraud hotline services by the District of Columbia Courts?

The provided data only includes a single contract award for fraud hotline services. There is no historical spending data presented for this specific service category by the District of Columbia Courts. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze procurement records over multiple fiscal years. This would involve searching for previous contracts for similar services, noting their values, durations, and award types (competed vs. sole-source). Without this historical context, it is difficult to determine if this $12,000 award represents an increase, decrease, or consistent level of spending for fraud hotline services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Business Support Services › Telephone Answering Services

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

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

Address: 3930 COMMERCE AVE, WILLOW GROVE, PA, 19090

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,000

Exercised Options: $12,000

Current Obligation: $12,000

Actual Outlays: $2,476

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline