Dems criticize ICE detention center bidding
A group of California congressional Democrats has raised “serious concern” over the solicitation process federal immigration authorities are using to secure new detention space across the state, saying it favors existing companies.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to lock in new contracts for four privately operated detention centers before the state bans such agreements with companies on Jan. 1.
The lawmakers said they are concerned that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, is trying to circumvent competition and steer the contracts to three private contractors that it already works with in California.
Homeland Security posted a solicitation for bids on the Federal Business Opportunities website Oct. 16, giving bidders until Nov. 4 to submit proposals. Contracts would begin Dec. 20 and last five years, with the possibility of two renewals.
ICE posted its solicitation less than a week
after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB32, which will ban private prisons — including detention facilities — from operating in California. The law goes into effect at the beginning of 2020 but allows existing contracts to continue.
The agency said it was looking for facilities in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, with a total of 5,000 beds.
Lawmakers said several aspects of the agency’s solicitation raise concern, including the length of the contract and the fact that bidders were only given two weeks to respond, compared with at least 30 days normally. Those factors — and a requirement that the new facilities be “turnkey ready” — make it clear ICE is favoring the corporations it already works with, they argued.
“Although the solicitation indicates that the procurement process will be conducted in a manner consistent with ‘full and open competition,’ its terms appear designed to eliminate meaningful competition in favor of three private corporations that operate within California,” they wrote.
Three companies operate four federal immigration detention centers in California, housing more than 4,000 detainees: GEO Group runs facilities in Bakersfield and Adelanto in San Bernardino County, CoreCivic runs one in San Diego and Management and Training Corp. runs one in Calexico in Imperial County.
Representatives for GEO Group and MTC deferred questions to ICE. CoreCivic could not immediately be reached for comment Friday afternoon.
Authored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, DAlameda, AB32 will prohibit the state from entering into or renewing contracts with private prison companies unless it’s necessary to comply with a courtordered population cap. Under the bill, private prisons would be phased out completely by 2028.
A private detention facility may continue its operations if it has a contract with a government agency that went into effect before Jan. 1. The law, however, prohibits extensions.
ICE did not respond to requests for comment. The agency has generally declined to comment on AB32 and its quest for new detention space.
The group of two U.S. senators and 19 members of the House of Representatives included Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, Ro Khanna of Fremont and Mark DeSaulnier of Concord. They asked immigration authorities to submit documents detailing the solicitation, including communications among ICE, Homeland Security and several prison corporations regarding AB32.
The delegation said ICE has bypassed the competitive process before. They pointed to the agency’s dealings with the city of Adelanto, which ended its contract with ICE — known as an intergovernmental service agreement or IGSA — in March. ICE awarded a $62 million solesource contract to GEO Group, the letter said.
ICE has said the solesource contract was necessary to prevent the “immediate disruption of operations,” according to news reports.
But lawmakers suggested GEO Group may have influenced Adelanto to end its contract, lawmakers said.
“Reports of similar conduct have surfaced in connection with other facilities in California that formerly operated under IGSA,” the letter said. “If true, these activities appear to be a concerted effort by private corporations to circumvent California state law — which currently prevents the expansion of detention facilities operating under IGSAs — and to benefit financially from the detention of individuals in California.”