DOJ's $376.6M contract for a 1,195-inmate correctional facility in Ohio awarded to CoreCivic, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $376,577,056 ($376.6M)

Contractor: Corecivic, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2004-12-23

End Date: 2015-05-31

Contract Duration: 3,811 days

Daily Burn Rate: $98.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 151060 - - CONTRACTOR-OWNED AND OPERATED CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO) TO HOUSE A POPULATION OF 1,195 (100% CAPACITY) LOW SECURITY MALE CRIMINAL ALIENS.

Place of Performance

Location: YOUNGSTOWN, MAHONING County, OHIO, 44505, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $376.6 million to CORECIVIC, INC. for work described as: 151060 - - CONTRACTOR-OWNED AND OPERATED CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO) TO HOUSE A POPULATION OF 1,195 (100% CAPACITY) LOW SECURITY MALE CRIMINAL ALIENS. Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in correctional infrastructure, with a substantial total value over its period of performance. 2. CoreCivic, Inc. secured this contract through full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price incentive contract type suggests a focus on cost control and performance incentives for the contractor. 4. The facility's purpose is to house low-security male criminal aliens, highlighting a specific demographic within the federal inmate population. 5. The contract duration of over 10 years points to a long-term commitment for correctional services. 6. The facility's capacity of 1,195 inmates at 100% utilization underscores the scale of the operational requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value-for-money for this contract is challenging without specific per-inmate-per-day cost data and comparisons to similar facilities. However, the total contract value of over $376 million for a facility housing 1,195 inmates over approximately 10 years suggests a significant per-inmate cost. While correctional facility contracts can vary widely based on services, security levels, and location, this contract's scale warrants scrutiny to ensure it aligns with industry standards and provides adequate value to taxpayers.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 5 bids suggests a competitive environment, which typically benefits price discovery and can lead to more favorable terms for the government. The level of competition is a positive indicator for achieving a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process, with multiple bidders, increases the likelihood that taxpayer funds were used efficiently by driving down costs through competitive pressure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Justice and the Federal Prison System, which gain operational capacity for housing federal inmates. The contract delivers correctional services, specifically the management and operation of a correctional facility. The geographic impact is localized to Youngstown, Ohio, where the facility is located, potentially creating local jobs and economic activity. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for correctional officers, administrative staff, and support personnel at the facility.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long-term contract duration may limit future opportunities for competition or innovation if not managed effectively.
Reliance on a single contractor for a large facility raises concerns about potential service disruptions or price increases upon renewal.
The fixed-price incentive structure, while aiming for efficiency, can sometimes lead to disputes over performance metrics or cost overruns if not clearly defined.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The fixed-price incentive contract type incentivizes the contractor to meet performance targets and manage costs.
The contract addresses a clear need for correctional capacity within the federal system.

Sector Analysis

The correctional services industry is a significant sector within government contracting, particularly for federal agencies managing inmate populations. This contract falls within the broader 'Correctional Institutions' NAICS code. The market for private correctional facility management is substantial, with several large players competing for government contracts. Benchmarks for similar facilities often consider per diem rates, security levels, and service scope, which can vary significantly.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and there is no explicit mention of small business set-asides. This suggests that the primary contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not detailed in this summary. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether CoreCivic, Inc. actively seeks small business subcontractors for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), a component of the Department of Justice. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting, though specific operational details might be sensitive. The Inspector General for the Department of Justice would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Federal Prison System Operations
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention Services
Bureau of Prisons Facilities Management
Correctional Services Contracts
Criminal Alien Management

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration
Potential for service quality degradation over time
Reliance on a single provider for critical infrastructure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $376.6 million to CORECIVIC, INC.. 151060 - - CONTRACTOR-OWNED AND OPERATED CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO) TO HOUSE A POPULATION OF 1,195 (100% CAPACITY) LOW SECURITY MALE CRIMINAL ALIENS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CORECIVIC, INC..

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 $376.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-12-23. End: 2015-05-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for correctional facility contracts awarded by the Department of Justice to CoreCivic, Inc. or its predecessors?

Analyzing historical spending requires access to a comprehensive database of federal contracts. However, CoreCivic, Inc. (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) has been a major provider of correctional services to federal, state, and local governments for decades. Their contract history with the DOJ likely includes numerous facilities and services, reflecting a significant and ongoing relationship. Examining past contracts would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and the types of services provided, offering context for the current Youngstown facility contract. This historical perspective is crucial for understanding the scale of CoreCivic's involvement and the government's reliance on their services over time.

How does the per-inmate cost of this contract compare to other federal correctional facilities, both government-operated and privately managed?

A direct per-inmate cost comparison is difficult without the specific daily operational costs or a clear breakdown of services included in the $376.6 million total. However, the contract's duration (over 10 years) and capacity (1,195 inmates) suggest a substantial annual cost. Private facilities often aim for cost efficiencies compared to government-run institutions, but pricing can be influenced by factors like security levels, inmate population characteristics (e.g., low-security criminal aliens), and the specific services required (healthcare, rehabilitation programs). To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare the annualized cost of this contract against the average per-inmate-per-day costs reported by the Bureau of Prisons for its own facilities and for other comparable private contracts, adjusting for any significant differences in service scope or inmate demographics.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentive structures within this fixed-price incentive contract, and how are they monitored?

While the specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts typically include target costs, target profits, and price ceilings, along with incentive formulas that adjust the final price based on performance against cost and schedule goals. For a correctional facility, KPIs could relate to inmate safety and security (e.g., incident rates, escapes), operational efficiency (e.g., staffing levels, facility maintenance), healthcare provision, and compliance with regulations. Monitoring would involve regular reporting by the contractor, site visits and audits by government officials (likely from the Bureau of Prisons), and potentially third-party evaluations. The effectiveness of the incentive structure hinges on clearly defined, measurable, and achievable KPIs that align with the government's objectives for the facility.

What is the track record of CoreCivic, Inc. regarding safety, security, and operational compliance in managing similar federal correctional facilities?

CoreCivic, Inc. (formerly CCA) has a long history of managing correctional facilities for various government agencies. Their track record is extensive and has been subject to public scrutiny and oversight. Reports from government watchdogs, Inspector General investigations, and media analyses have sometimes raised concerns regarding staffing levels, inmate safety incidents, and operational compliance in some of their facilities. Conversely, they have also operated facilities that meet or exceed performance standards. A thorough assessment would require reviewing specific performance reviews, audit findings, and incident reports related to CoreCivic's management of federal contracts, particularly those involving similar inmate populations and security levels, to gauge their reliability and effectiveness.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term (over 10 years) contract for a correctional facility, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Long-term contracts for correctional facilities carry several risks. These include potential cost escalation beyond initial projections if not adequately controlled by the contract terms, contractor complacency leading to decreased service quality, and the risk of the facility becoming outdated or misaligned with evolving correctional policies or needs. Furthermore, a long-term commitment can reduce flexibility for the government to adapt to changing inmate populations or to transition to different models of incarceration. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract management, performance monitoring, clear clauses for contract modification or termination for cause, regular performance reviews, and contingency planning for service disruptions or contractor failure. The fixed-price incentive structure itself is a form of risk mitigation aimed at cost control.

How does the 'contractor-owned and operated' nature of this facility impact oversight and accountability compared to government-owned facilities?

Contractor-owned and operated (CO/CO) facilities, like the one in Youngstown, shift the burden of capital investment and day-to-day management to the private entity, CoreCivic, Inc. This can offer financial advantages and operational flexibility to the government. However, it also necessitates rigorous oversight to ensure the contractor upholds contractual obligations, maintains safety and security standards, and operates ethically. Accountability is primarily enforced through the contract terms, performance metrics, and potential penalties or termination clauses. Government agencies must actively monitor operations, conduct audits, and investigate any issues that arise. While CO/CO models can be efficient, they require a strong governmental oversight framework to prevent potential conflicts of interest or lapses in standards that might occur in government-run facilities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities › Correctional Institutions

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: RFP PCC-0008

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10 BURTON HILLS BLVD STE 100, NASHVILLE, TN, 37215

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $380,931,634

Exercised Options: $376,577,056

Current Obligation: $376,577,056

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline