P530 Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan

The mean ($5.2M) is substantially above the median ($1.4M) because several unusually large awards are included — the largest 10% of awards account for 67% of total observed value. The median is the better guide to a typical award.

"Award amount" is obligations recorded against the award to date — not the contract ceiling, and not outlays. Based on 879 analyzed awards.

Historical award activity. It does not indicate when or whether comparable requirements will be solicited again. Counts awards at or above $350K only.

Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-17

These are shares of the federal awards analyzed here, not commercial market share in this sector. Share of observed value and share of award count are different metrics and can differ sharply for the same supplier.

Public procurement data has no incumbent field. What follows is a pattern extracted mechanically from award records. It does not establish that any supplier currently holds this work, or that it will win the next award. Treat it as a starting point for research.

• AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATIONSignal: moderate

  117 · $475.2M · latest 2026-07-08

  • ·117 of the 879 analyzed comparable awards
  • ·79 of the 117 with a known contracting office came from the same one (NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST)
  • ·Most recent comparable award 2026-07-08, within 540 days of this analysis
• NIPPO CORPORATIONSignal: moderate

  73 · $746.9M · latest 2026-07-10

  • ·73 of the 879 analyzed comparable awards
  • ·Most recent comparable award 2026-07-10, within 540 days of this analysis
• ACTY CO., LTD.Signal: moderate

  58 · $90.9M · latest 2026-06-02

  • ·58 of the 879 analyzed comparable awards
  • ·30 of the 58 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5209 374 CONS PK)
  • ·Most recent comparable award 2026-06-02, within 540 days of this analysis
• SEIKITOKYU KOGYO CO., LTD.Signal: moderate

  50 · $75.3M · latest 2026-04-20

  • ·50 of the 879 analyzed comparable awards
  • ·41 of the 50 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5209 374 CONS PK)
  • ·Most recent comparable award 2026-04-20, within 540 days of this analysis
• NIHON MECCS CO.,LTD.Signal: moderate

  47 · $161.5M · latest 2026-07-08

  • ·47 of the 879 analyzed comparable awards
  • ·47 of the 47 with a known contracting office came from the same one (NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST)
  • ·Most recent comparable award 2026-07-08, within 540 days of this analysis

Derived from the 879 analyzed comparable awards. It does not imply that other suppliers will not bid.

Shares are over the 879 of 879 analyzed awards that carry a supplier address. The other 0 have no recipient location recorded in the public data.

Supplier location is an observed characteristic, not a statement of eligibility. That Japan-based suppliers have won comparable work does not mean a Japan-based firm may bid on this solicitation; that U.S.-based suppliers have performed in Japan does not mean any U.S. firm could. Eligibility is set by this solicitation.

The historical distribution is descriptive only and does not determine eligibility for this solicitation. Review the notice and SAM.gov for the eligibility and restrictions that apply, including any bearing on non-U.S. entities.

• FactOf all 879 awards with a detail record on file, 785 reported an offer count.

  ObservationAcross those 785 awards the median reported offer count is 3, and 125 of them recorded a single offer.

  Possible implicationComparable procurements may typically have drawn more than one offer.

  To verifyWhat operational, geographic, regulatory or capability requirements may limit participation?
  Evidence: moderate
• FactAcross the 879 analyzed awards the median value is $1.4M, with the middle 50% falling between $690K and $3.6M.

  ObservationThe mean of $5.2M sits well above the median: a small number of unusually large awards accounts for much of the value (the largest 10% of awards hold 67% of the total).

  Possible implicationThis range is a reference point against the contract size a firm can take on.

  To verifyWhere in this distribution is the notice under review likely to fall, judging from its statement of work and CLIN structure?
  Evidence: moderate
• Fact629 comparable awards began within the observation window, the first on 2022-10-17 and the most recent on 2026-09-25. A further 247 analyzed awards began before the window and were still receiving obligations inside it; they are ongoing work rather than new demand, so they are excluded from this count.

  ObservationThat averages about 157.3 awards per year, with a median of 1 days between consecutive awards.

  Possible implicationThis category shows recurring historical demand, so comparable requirements may appear again.

  To verifyHow often are comparable requirements recompeted, and does any public source indicate when the next one is due?
  Evidence: moderate
• FactThe 879 analyzed awards went to 90 suppliers; the largest holds 16% of observed value and the top five hold 49%.

  ObservationThat gives an HHI of 642, which the US antitrust agencies' bands describe as unconcentrated.

  Possible implicationThis is concentration among the federal awards analyzed here — not commercial market share in this sector.

  To verifyAre the leading suppliers concentrated at particular contracting offices, and does the record contain any first-time entrants?
  Evidence: moderate
• FactOf the 879 analyzed awards with a recorded supplier country, 822 went to Japan-based suppliers and 57 to U.S.-based suppliers.

  ObservationJapan-based suppliers account for 94% of the analyzed awards with a known supplier country.

  Possible implicationJapan-based suppliers have won comparable work, but eligibility is set per solicitation; it cannot be inferred from where a supplier is based.

  To verifyDoes this solicitation contain conditions bearing on non-U.S. entities — set-aside status, registration requirements, export controls?
  Evidence: moderate

A possible implication is an interpretation, not a finding. Public award data cannot establish cause.

1. 01

   Who performed the most recent comparable award, and what does the public record show about it?

   ← The most recent comparable award started 2026-09-25.

2. 02

   Is the same supplier repeatedly serving this contracting office, and is there evidence of an incumbent relationship?

   ← AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION holds 117 of the analyzed comparable awards.

3. 03

   Are comparable requirements typically competed, or does the record show limited-source procedures?

   ← Of the 879 awards with a recorded competition procedure, the most common is "FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION".

4. 04

   Are awards concentrated among a small number of suppliers, and are the larger awards concentrated among particular ones?

   ← The top five suppliers hold 49% of observed value.

5. 05

   How much comparable work has gone to Japan-based suppliers, and is there evidence of subcontracting or teaming?

   ← 822 of the 879 awards with a known supplier country went to Japan-based firms.

6. 06

   How many contracting offices buy this, or is it one office's recurring requirement?

   ← The 879 analyzed awards span 11 contracting offices.

7. 07

   What eligibility and registration requirements appear in this notice — SAM registration, NCAGE, export controls, installation access?

8. 08

   What is missing from the public record, and what should be raised with the contracting office during the question period?

• ×Why a supplier won — evaluation results, technical scores and price breakdowns are not published
• ×Why other suppliers did not bid
• ×A supplier's profit margin or cost structure
• ×A supplier's capacity, or whether it could take on more work
• ×Informal customer relationships or past-performance assessments
• ×Undisclosed teaming arrangements or subcontracting structures
• ×Proposal quality, or technical capability beyond what is documented
• ×When the next comparable requirement will be solicited
• ×What the next award will be worth
• ×Whether a historical supplier will bid again

These are structural limits of published federal procurement data, not gaps in this analysis. Where one of them matters to a bid decision, it has to be answered outside the public record — through the solicitation's question period or your own market research.

Selection: A complete census of every award matching these filters.

Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-17

• This solicitation

  Primary: the solicitation — SAM.gov notice ↗

• Historical award activity

  Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-17

• FAR / DFARS clauses

  Official regulation — eCFR — the official Code of Federal Regulations ↗

• Simplified acquisition threshold

  Official regulation — FAR 2.101 ↗

• Business size standards

  Official agency source — U.S. Small Business Administration ↗

Every statistic on this page is calculated from public USAspending.gov records. The solicitation's own terms come from SAM.gov, which is authoritative; where the two differ, SAM.gov controls.