How do IGSA contracts differ from standard federal contracts in ICE procurement, and which 2025 facility awards used IGSA vehicles?
Executive summary
Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) are a distinct procurement pathway ICE uses to buy detention bed space by renting from state and local governments rather than by direct federal contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) [1] [2]. Reporting and oversight reviews conclude IGSAs are faster, less transparent, and more likely to route money through local governments to private operators than traditional ICE procurement, but the provided sources do not identify specific 2025 facility awards that used IGSA vehicles and thus no definitive list of 2025 IGSA-based awards can be produced from the available reporting [3] [1].
1. What an IGSA actually is — a rental of beds, not a FAR contract
An IGSA is an agreement that lets ICE rent bed space from a state or local government facility — effectively paying per detainee or for guaranteed capacity — rather than entering a direct procurement contract with a private operator, and IGSAs are explicitly not grants and are treated separately from typical federal procurement instruments [2] [1]. The practical outcome is that ICE pays local jails or counties for “administrative” immigrant detainees and those entities may then subcontract operations to private prison companies, creating a multi-step funding flow distinct from a direct federal-to-contractor contract [4] [3].
2. Key procedural differences: FAR applicability, speed, and riders
Unlike standard federal contracts that must comply with the FAR and competitive procurement norms, IGSAs and related mechanisms such as U.S. Marshals Service riders are not governed by FAR in the same way and can be executed more rapidly, allowing ICE to expand bed space with fewer procedural barriers and less competition than direct ICE-private company contracts [1] [3]. Oversight reports and advocacy analyses stress that riders and IGSA guaranteed-minimum clauses let ICE reserve capacity quickly, sometimes without the time-consuming solicitation and bid processes a FAR-based direct contract would demand [3] [5].
3. Financial and political incentives baked into the IGSA model
The IGSA structure frequently routes federal payments through a local government that pays a private operator and may receive administrative fees or other compensation, creating incentive dynamics that can encourage jurisdictions to establish or renew IGSAs because the local entity benefits financially even when the private company runs day-to-day detention operations [6] [3]. Investigations have documented instances where municipalities received steady payments or inducements that critics say skew local decision‑making toward hosting detainee beds, and advocacy groups argue this setup can be used to skirt open‑government and procurement protections [7] [8].
4. Oversight, accountability, and critiques from watchdogs and advocates
DHS Office of Inspector General and GAO-style critiques have found ICE lacked consistent policies and documentation for IGSAs and that some IGSAs appeared improper under procurement law, concluding the vehicle reduces transparency and can circumvent federal procurement safeguards [1] [3]. Immigrant‑rights organizations and legal analyses likewise contend IGSAs enable “pass‑through” arrangements and a “theater of compliance” that obscures accountability and can mask conditions in facilities operated by private contractors [8] [9].
5. Competing interpretations and reporting limits on 2025 awards
ICE acquisition staff have defended IGSA modifications as expedient tools to meet operational needs, framing speed and pre‑existing services as legitimate reasons to use IGSA vehicles rather than direct contracts [1]. However, advocacy groups and legal scholars view the same features as deliberate workarounds of procurement law [7] [6]. Importantly, the sources provided do not list specific ICE facility awards in 2025 that used IGSAs, so no authoritative inventory of 2025 IGSA‑based awards can be drawn from this reporting; further FOIA releases or ICE contract disclosures would be required to identify which 2025 facility awards — if any — employed IGSA mechanisms [10].