Which specific detention contractors and facility projects have received OBBBA‑funded contracts or notices to proceed?
Executive summary
Reporting to date shows a small number of large, OBBBA‑era detention contracts publicly tied to expansion plans: a Fort Bliss detention‑center contract reported as awarded to Acquisition Logistics Company and a separate multibillion‑dollar tent/shelter contract to Deployed Resources — while broader lists of eligible bidders, no‑bid awards to politically connected companies, and recurring contractor names such as CoreCivic and GEO Group appear across coverage and advocacy reporting [1] [2] [3]. Public documentation is uneven: several trade and advocacy pieces describe funding streams and procurement opportunities under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act but do not produce a comprehensive, verified list of every OBBBA‑funded award or notice to proceed [4] [5] [6].
1. Known, named awards and large contracts
Journalists have reported two high‑profile contract awards tied to the post‑OBBBA detention expansion: a $1.26 billion contract for an immigrant detention center at Fort Bliss reported as awarded to Acquisition Logistics Company, and a separate April award of roughly $3.8 billion to Deployed Resources — the latter a company previously known for large‑event tenting that has moved into temporary shelter contracting for government use [1]. Those two specific contract reports are the clearest, named procurement actions visible in the dataset provided and are repeatedly cited in contemporaneous coverage as examples of how OBBBA funding is being translated into construction and shelter supply awards [1].
2. Companies under discussion as operators or likely beneficiaries
Coverage and advocacy records single out established private prison and immigration‑detention operators — notably CoreCivic and GEO Group — as key industry players discussed in connection with OBBBA‑era expansion, with reporting noting projects and facilities under their purview, prior troubled facility histories, and public controversies over no‑bid and politically connected awards [2] [3]. The ACLU and reporting cited specific GEO‑affiliated facilities and criticized plans to revive or repurpose closed sites, and AP reporting documented a pattern of no‑bid awards to politically connected firms that map onto the broader detention‑contracting ecosystem [3] [2].
3. Procurement pipelines, emergency lists, and anticipated solicitations
Government and industry sources describe a broader procurement pipeline rather than a single, transparent awards list: ICE identified about 41 companies eligible to bid in an “emergency acquisition” process that media reported as a channel for billions in detention contracts, and industry analyses (Deltek, GovConWire) flagged multibillion‑dollar IDIQs and temporary‑facilities recompetes that align with OBBBA priorities [1] [5]. Those items indicate many opportunities and notices to proceed will flow through established DHS contracting vehicles and emergency authorities, but public reporting has so far identified only select awards by name [5] [1].
4. What proponents and critics each point to as evidence
Proponents frame OBBBA funding as long‑term appropriations to expand ICE capacity — including billions for adult and family detention and infrastructure through FY2029 — and identify large forthcoming procurements and the procurement channels that contractors should watch [4] [5]. Critics and civil‑liberties groups point to no‑bid awards, politically connected contractors, documented abuses at some facilities, and the moral and legal stakes of expanded family detention, arguing the named awards and operator histories underscore systemic risk [2] [3] [6].
5. Reporting gaps, limitations, and next steps for verification
Available public reporting names a few headline awards (Acquisition Logistics Company; Deployed Resources) and references established detention operators discussed as likely beneficiaries (CoreCivic, GEO Group), but it does not offer a complete, government‑published roll‑out of every OBBBA‑funded contract or formal notices to proceed; trade and watchdog pieces confirm the money, procurement vehicles, and contractor interest but leave a fragmented picture of specific awarded projects and their contractual terms [1] [5] [7]. To construct a definitive list requires access to federal contract databases, agency obligation notices, and award documents that reporters cite only selectively in the material provided [7].