KanagawaSupplies & equipmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE.FA5209 374 CONS PK
Replace DSN-HDD Generator for 78th Signal Battalion, Camp Zama, Japan.
Posted 2026-11-09· Response deadline 2026-11-24· Related by: same category
Supplies & equipment
FORGED STEPPED SHAFTS, K500 ALLOY, In Accordance With QQ-N286H, FORM 7
Worked example: this is the full analysis a Hashike account shows for this opportunity. Data as of Nov 10, 2026.
Requirement
What is being purchased?
Original English — the controlling text
Open the official source on SAM.gov ↗
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products prepared in accordance with part 12. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. Offers are being requested and a separate written solicitation will not be issued. Solicitation number N0040627R0005 is issued by Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound (FLCPS) as a Request for Quote (RFQ) for FORGED STEPPED SHAFT (Qty:2), K500 ALLOY, HOT FINISHED AND AGED HARDENED in accordance with QQ-N-286H, FORM 7, and must adhere to the Non-Manufacturer Rule (RFO 52.219-33). Additionally, a Certificate of Chemical and Physical Properties is required, as well as a Slow Strain Rate Tensile Test Result. This acquisition is set-aside for small business concerns. The solicitation incorporates provisions and clauses in effect through the current Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2026-01 with an effective date of March 13, 2026. The full text of all FAR provisions and clauses may be accessed electronically at Acquisition.gov. This solicitation incorporates provisions and clauses by reference. The full text of provisions and clauses may be accessed electronically at www.acquisition.gov. The NAICS CODE is 332999 and the Small Business Size Standard is 750. The Government intends to award a firm fixed price (FFP) purchase order that meets the specifications outlined below. The proposed contract action is for commercial supplies for which the Government intends to solicit as 100% Small Business Set-Aside. Interested parties may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement and submit quotes. Determination by the Government not to compete with this proposed contract based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation without discussions to the responsible offeror whose quote, conforming to the solicitation that represents the best value to the Government, price, delivery, technical acceptability, past performance, and other factors considered. Drawing, references and TGIs will not be provided or furnished as part of this solicitation due to distribution restrictions. QUESTIONS: Offerors may submit their questions regarding clarification of solicitation requirements to the Contract Specialist: Brian Devine Jr by email at brian.e.devine2.civ@us.navy.mil, no later than 2 days before closing of the solicitation. Any questions received after this deadline may not be answered. System for Award Management (SAM). Quoting vendors must be registered in the SAM database to be considered for award. Registration is free and can be completed on-line at http://sam.gov/. To be considered for this opportunity, all quotes shall be submitted in either Microsoft Word, Excel spreadsheet or Adobe PDF. Quotes must include price(s), FOB Origin, a point of contact, name and phone number, business size, and payment terms. An award will be made based on Best Value. Each quote must clearly indicate the capability of the vendor to meet all specifications and/or requirements in the SOW. Vendors shall provide a detailed (unpriced) capabilities statement for review and acceptance by the Technical POC. Responses to this solicitation are due by 1300 PST (1:00 PM PST) on 11/18/2026. Please email proposals to Brian Devine Jr at brian.e.devine2.civ@us.navy.mil. Quotes shall be valid for sixty (60) days (at minimum). Quote packages shall contain the following information: Official Company Name Point of contact including name and phone number; and Cage Code number. Authorized Distributor Letter from Original Equipment Manufacturer See attached solicitation for a list of line item number(s) and items, quantities, specifications, requirements, and units of measure. The Point of Contact for this acquisition is Brian Devine Jr, brian.e.devine2.civ@us.navy.mil. Secondary Point of Contact is Homer Shoup, homer.o.shoup.civ@us.navy.mil Quote packages are due by 11/18/2026 at 1300 PST (1:00 PM PST).
Japanese — AI translation
AI-generated translation, unedited, for orientation only — not the controlling text. Rely on the English original and SAM.gov's official notice for bid decisions.
Comparable market analysis
Everything from here down is calculated from past contracts in the same category and place of performance. It says nothing about this specific notice.
Market depth: deep — 35 analyzed awards, 25 suppliers, 5 buying organizations, 10 contracting offices. 1.4 awards per supplier, and repeat suppliers account for 46%.
02Market intelligence
How large is the comparable market, and what shape is it?
Comparable demand
35
public award records with activity recorded between 2022-11-10 and 2026-11-10, using last-modified date as a proxy for USAspending's action-date window (an award may have started earlier)
How this is calculated
Place of performance Japan, NAICS 332999, prime awards only. No dollar floor applied.
Typical award value
$35K
Middle 50%: $17K–$126K
of 35 analyzed comparable awards
How this is calculated
Median and quartiles. The median leads because a mean is pulled by a few very large awards.
Observed competition
2
Single offer: 15/34
of the 34 awards with a reported offer count
How this is calculated
Offer counts appear only on award detail records. Of all 34 awards with a detail record on file, 34 reported an offer count; 15 of those recorded a single offer. The remaining 1 analyzed awards have no detail record. These percentages cannot be applied to awards without a detail record.
Supplier concentration
35%
Top 5: 79% · 25 suppliers
by observed value across 35 analyzed awards
How this is calculated
Share of the federal awards analyzed here — not commercial market share in this sector.
Observed recurrence
7.3/yr
29 / 4.0 yr
comparable awards that began within the observation window
How this is calculated
6 analyzed awards began before the window and were still active inside it; they are ongoing work, not new demand, so they are excluded here.
Awards to Japan-based suppliers
9
US 24 · Other 2
of 35 awards with a recorded supplier country (0 unknown)
How this is calculated
Supplier location is an observed characteristic. It does not establish eligibility, which is set by each solicitation.
Evidence strength
Evidence: moderate
- Calculated from 35 public award records.
Every figure here is calculated from past public award records. None of it describes what will happen on this solicitation.
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-11-10
Offer counts, set-aside and contracting office exist only on per-award detail records; 34 of the 35 analyzed awards were examined in detail. All 34 awards with a detail record on file, out of 35 analyzed, were examined. Award value, dates, supplier name and supplier location are known for all 35.
03Award economics
What have comparable awards been worth?
- Minimum
- $2K
- 25th percentile
- $17K
- Median
- $35K
- 75th percentile
- $126K
- Maximum
- $1.7M
- Mean
- $137K
The mean ($137K) is substantially above the median ($35K) because several unusually large awards are included — the largest 10% of awards account for 64% of total observed value. The median is the better guide to a typical award.
Full distribution statistics
| Count | 35 |
| Minimum | $2,280 |
| 25th percentile | $16,655 |
| Median | $34,850 |
| 75th percentile | $126,133 |
| Maximum | $1,704,503 |
| Mean | $137,494 |
| Standard deviation | $308,776 |
| Interquartile range | $109,478 |
| Coefficient of variation | 2.25 |
| Total | $4,812,276 |
Percentiles use linear interpolation — the same definition as a spreadsheet's PERCENTILE function. 0 records with a non-positive amount were excluded as administrative modifications rather than work anyone bid for.
"Award amount" is obligations recorded against the award to date — not the contract ceiling, and not outlays. Based on 35 analyzed awards.
Ceiling value (detail-examined subset)
Of the 34 awards examined in detail, 34 carried a recorded ceiling (Base and All Options Value). Its median was $35,273, against a median obligated amount of $35,273 across the same 34 awards — 1.0x. 29 of those had a ceiling equal to the obligated amount, meaning no unexercised option value.
The ceiling is what the award could reach if every priced option were exercised — it is not spending that has happened or a forecast that it will.
04Demand pattern
How frequently have comparable awards occurred?
Awards per year
7.3
Quarterly 1.8 · Monthly 0.6
29 awards over the 4.0-year observation window
Median days between awards
8 days
Middle 50%: 3–56 days
across 28 consecutive award pairs
Most recent comparable award
2026-06-12
152 days ago
observed range 2023-06-07 to 2026-06-12
Awards that began earlier
6
analyzed awards that began before the window and were still active within it
How this is calculated
Ongoing work rather than new demand, so it is excluded from the frequency figures above.
Annual breakdown
| Year | Count | Total | Median | Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | $438K | $36K | Full year |
| 2024 | 11 | $3.2M | $72K | Full year |
| 2025 | 5 | $245K | $21K | Full year |
| 2026 | 7 | $724K | $43K | Partial year |
Historical award activity. It does not indicate when or whether comparable requirements will be solicited again.
05Reported competition
How many offers have comparable procurements reported?
The population behind this statistic
- ① Comparable awards matching the filters: 35
- ② Of those, examined in detail: 34
- ③ Of those, with a reported offer count: 34 ← every share below is over this 34
44%
56%
- Single offer reported15 of 34 · 44%
- Two or more offers19 of 34 · 56%
Median reported offers
2
Mean 2.2 · Range 1–6
of the 34 awards with a reported offer count
Awards reporting a single offer
15 / 34
44%
of the 34 awards with a reported offer count
How this is calculated
A single reported offer does not mean no other supplier could have bid. It records only that one offer was reported.
Awards reporting multiple offers
19 / 34
56%
of the 34 awards with a reported offer count
Offer count unavailable
1
Not detail-fetched 1 · No record 0
of 35 analyzed comparable awards
Distribution of reported offers
- 1 offer15 / 34
- 2 offers6 / 34
- 3 offers8 / 34
- 4 offers3 / 34
- 5 offers1 / 34
- 6 offers1 / 34
Recorded competition procedures (34 awards)
- COMPETED UNDER SAP35.3%
- FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION32.4%
- NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP23.5%
- NOT COMPETED5.9%
- FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES2.9%
The competition procedure the buying office recorded in FPDS. It does not govern who may bid on this solicitation.
Evidence: moderate
- Calculated from 35 public award records.
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-11-10
06Competitive landscape
Who has historically performed comparable work?
- SUPPLYCORE LLC35.4% of value1 award (2.9% of awards)
- ELEMENTS INDUSTRIAL STORAGE LIMITED23.4% of value2 awards (5.7% of awards)
- UNITED SYSTEM CO.,LTD.9.2% of value3 awards (8.6% of awards)
- ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, INC.5.8% of value5 awards (14.3% of awards)
- NYLACAST LLC5.1% of value1 award (2.9% of awards)
- All other suppliers (20)21.0% of value23 awards (65.7% of awards)
| Supplier | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value | Median | First | Latest | Country |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.9% | $1.7M | 35.4% | $1.7M | 2024-09-10 | 2024-09-10 | USA | |
| 2 | 5.7% | $1.1M | 23.4% | $564K | 2024-12-18 | 2026-06-01 | GBR | |
| 3 | 8.6% | $443K | 9.2% | $110K | 2022-09-30 | 2023-09-22 | JPN | |
| 5 | 14.3% | $279K | 5.8% | $16K | 2023-10-01 | 2026-06-12 | USA | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $247K | 5.1% | $247K | 2024-09-18 | 2024-09-18 | USA | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $186K | 3.9% | $186K | 2026-06-08 | 2026-06-08 | USA | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $172K | 3.6% | $172K | 2025-07-31 | 2025-07-31 | USA | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $147K | 3.0% | $147K | 2024-04-18 | 2024-04-18 | JPN | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $72K | 1.5% | $72K | 2024-09-27 | 2024-09-27 | USA | |
| 2 | 5.7% | $55K | 1.1% | $28K | 2022-09-12 | 2025-04-24 | JPN |
Distinct suppliers
25
of 35 analyzed comparable awards
How this is calculated
Spelling variants of one company are merged by official identifier (UEI) or normalized name. Different companies are never merged on name similarity alone.
Top supplier share
35%
By award count: 14%
by observed value across 35 analyzed awards
Top 5 supplier share
79%
By award count: 40%
by observed value across 35 analyzed awards
HHI (moderately concentrated)
1,994
computed over every supplier in the 35 analyzed awards
How this is calculated
The sum of each supplier's percentage share, squared. Every analyzed award is attributed to a supplier, so this is exact for this population. US antitrust agencies read below 1,500 as unconcentrated and 2,500+ as highly concentrated.
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.
Repeat suppliers
Suppliers with one award
19
of 25 suppliers
Two awards
4
of 25 suppliers
Three or more
2
of 25 suppliers
Awards to repeat suppliers
46%
Median days to repeat award: 386
of 35 analyzed comparable awards
Public data does not show why a supplier recurs. An ongoing relationship, specialised facilities and sole-source availability all produce the same pattern.
08Buyer landscape
Who is buying this work?
Buying organizations (share of value)
- Department of the Air Force85.0%
- Department of the Navy13.1%
- Defense Logistics Agency0.7%
- Department of State0.7%
- Department of the Army0.5%
5 buying organizations account for the 35 analyzed awards; the largest holds 85% of observed value.
Contracting offices
| Contracting office | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value | Median | First | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 11.8% | $2.0M | 41.7% | $129K | 2022-09-19 | 2026-06-08 | |
| 12 | 35.3% | $1.4M | 30.2% | $26K | 2022-10-01 | 2026-06-12 | |
| 5 | 14.7% | $626K | 13.1% | $110K | 2022-09-12 | 2024-09-24 | |
| 3 | 8.8% | $294K | 6.1% | $32K | 2024-09-18 | 2026-04-30 | |
| 2 | 5.9% | $188K | 3.9% | $94K | 2022-01-12 | 2025-07-31 | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $147K | 3.1% | $147K | 2024-04-18 | 2024-04-18 | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $35K | 0.7% | $35K | 2025-09-12 | 2025-09-12 | |
| 2 | 5.9% | $25K | 0.5% | $12K | 2022-03-14 | 2024-08-06 | |
| 1 | 2.9% | $22K | 0.5% | $22K | 2024-08-09 | 2024-08-09 | |
| 3 | 8.8% | $10K | 0.2% | $4K | 2025-01-23 | 2026-05-07 |
Contracting office appears only on detail records, so this covers the 34 awards examined in detail, out of 35 analyzed. Concentration at a single office may indicate a recurring requirement specific to that office.
09Recurring supplier context
Are there recurring suppliers worth investigating as possible incumbents?
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.
- ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, INC.Signal: moderate
5 · $279K · latest 2026-06-12
- 5 of the 35 analyzed comparable awards
- 4 of the 5 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5205 35 CONS PK)
- Most recent comparable award 2026-06-12, within 540 days of this analysis
- UNITED SYSTEM CO.,LTD.Signal: moderate
3 · $443K · latest 2023-09-22
- 3 of the 35 analyzed comparable awards
- 3 of the 3 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5270 18 CONS PK)
- ELEMENTS INDUSTRIAL STORAGE LIMITEDSignal: moderate
2 · $1.1M · latest 2026-06-01
- 2 of the 35 analyzed comparable awards
- 2 of the 2 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5205 35 CONS PK)
- Most recent comparable award 2026-06-01, within 540 days of this analysis
- CENTRAL STATES WIRE PRODUCTS INCSignal: moderate
2 · $6K · latest 2026-03-12
- 2 of the 35 analyzed comparable awards
- 2 of the 2 with a known contracting office came from the same one (DLA DISTRIBUTION)
- Most recent comparable award 2026-03-12, within 540 days of this analysis
- TAKAESU KOHKI CO., LTD.Signal: weak
2 · $55K · latest 2025-04-24
- 2 of the 35 analyzed comparable awards
Derived from the 35 analyzed comparable awards. It does not imply that other suppliers will not bid.
10Supplier geography
Where are the suppliers based, and where is the work performed?
| Location | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | 9 | 25.7% | $743K | 15.4% |
| United States | 24 | 68.6% | $2.9M | 61.1% |
| Other (UNITED KINGDOM) | 2 | 5.7% | $1.1M | 23.4% |
| Unknown | 0 | — | — | — |
Shares are over the 35 of 35 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.
Place-of-performance record
Japan 35 · Other 0 · Not recorded 0. Place of performance is the filter that scoped this comparable set — a separate field from supplier location.
The 8 largest analyzed comparable awards
- SUPPLYCORE LLC$1.7M
BANAIR ROLLING STOCK CRATES. SEE ATTACHMENT 1.
Department of the Air Force · FA5209 374 CONS PK · 2024-09-10〜2025-03-09 · USAspending ↗
AN ALL ACCESS CARGO RACK SHELVES DELIVERING AND INSTALLING AT MISAWA
Department of the Air Force · FA5205 35 CONS PK · 2024-12-18〜2027-03-31 · USAspending ↗
393W-Z4 TACTICAL STORAGE RACKS FOR BLDG. 1334
Department of the Air Force · FA5205 35 CONS PK · 2026-06-01〜2026-11-30 · USAspending ↗
ROLLING SHELVES
Department of the Air Force · FA5270 18 CONS PK · 2023-09-22〜2024-03-15 · USAspending ↗
- NYLACAST LLC$247K
CHOCK LINERS
Department of the Navy · NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR YOKOSUKA · 2024-09-18〜2024-12-31 · USAspending ↗
374 SFS PORTABLE BARRIERS
Department of the Air Force · FA5209 374 CONS PK · 2026-06-08〜2026-07-23 · USAspending ↗
- JERED LLC$172K
PINION LOW SPEED
Department of the Navy · NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR PUGET SOUND · 2025-07-31〜2026-04-23 · USAspending ↗
15FT HIGH MOBILE STEEL PLATFORM
Department of the Navy · NAVSUP FLC YOKOSUKA SASEBO OFFICE · 2024-04-18〜2024-08-31 · USAspending ↗
Descriptions are written by the buying office and are often terse or blank. These are the largest awards, not typical ones — the median above is the guide to a typical award.
Set-aside status
Does a set-aside restrict who may bid?
This solicitation
Small Business Set Aside - Total
As stated on SAM.gov
Comparable historical awards
- NO SET ASIDE USED.33
- SMALL BUSINESS SET ASIDE - TOTAL1
Of the 34 awards examined in detail, 34 had a recorded set-aside status
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.
11Reading the data
What is observed, what it may mean, and what it does not establish
- FactOf all 34 awards with a detail record on file, 34 reported an offer count.ObservationAcross those 34 awards the median reported offer count is 2, and 15 of them recorded a single offer.Possible implicationComparable Japan-place-of-performance procurements may have a limited pool of firms able or willing to compete.To verifyWhat operational, geographic, regulatory or capability requirements may limit participation?Evidence: moderate
- FactAcross the 35 analyzed awards the median value is $35K, with the middle 50% falling between $17K and $126K.ObservationThe mean of $137K sits well above the median: a small number of unusually large awards accounts for much of the value (the largest 10% of awards hold 64% 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
- Fact29 comparable awards began within the observation window, the first on 2023-06-07 and the most recent on 2026-06-12. A further 6 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 7.3 awards per year, with a median of 8 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: limited
- FactThe 35 analyzed awards went to 25 suppliers; the largest holds 35% of observed value and the top five hold 79%.ObservationThat gives an HHI of 1,994, which the US antitrust agencies' bands describe as moderately concentrated.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 35 analyzed awards with a recorded supplier country, 9 went to Japan-based suppliers and 24 to U.S.-based suppliers.ObservationJapan-based suppliers account for 26% 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.
12Questions to investigate
What to verify before deciding whether to pursue this
- 01
Who performed the most recent comparable award, and what does the public record show about it?
← The most recent comparable award started 2026-06-12.
- 02
Is the same supplier repeatedly serving this contracting office, and is there evidence of an incumbent relationship?
← ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, INC. holds 5 of the analyzed comparable awards.
- 03
Are comparable requirements typically competed, or does the record show limited-source procedures?
← Of the 34 awards with a recorded competition procedure, the most common is "COMPETED UNDER SAP".
- 04
Could the awards not examined in detail show a different pattern of offers or set-asides?
← 1 analyzed awards have no detail record retrieved.
- 05
Are awards concentrated among a small number of suppliers, and are the larger awards concentrated among particular ones?
← The top five suppliers hold 79% of observed value.
- 06
How much comparable work has gone to Japan-based suppliers, and is there evidence of subcontracting or teaming?
← 9 of the 35 awards with a known supplier country went to Japan-based firms.
- 07
How many contracting offices buy this, or is it one office's recurring requirement?
← The 35 analyzed awards span 10 contracting offices.
- 08
What eligibility and registration requirements appear in this notice — SAM registration, NCAGE, export controls, installation access?
- 09
What is missing from the public record, and what should be raised with the contracting office during the question period?
13Data quality
How complete and reliable is the evidence?
Awards analyzed35
Records matching filters35
Detail records fetched34
Duplicates dropped0
Suppliers unresolved by official ID0
Data retrieved2026-11-10 12:57 UTC (19 hours ago)
Missingness by field
| Field | Missing | Of | Missing share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award amount | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Award start date | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Supplier name | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Supplier UEI (identifier used to resolve entities) | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Reported offer count (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 34 | 0.0% |
| Supplier country | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
| Set-aside (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 34 | 0.0% |
| Contracting office (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 34 | 0.0% |
| Award description | 0 | 35 | 0.0% |
The denominator differs by field because offer count, set-aside and contracting office exist only on per-award detail records. Those rows are measured against the number of detail records fetched, not against the whole analyzed set.
14What the public data does not tell you
What remains unknown after everything above
- 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.
15How comparable awards were selected
Which awards were included, and how was everything calculated?
| Place of performance | Japan (JPN) |
| NAICS | 332999 |
| Award type | A, B, C, D — prime awards only |
| Recorded activity window (last-modified date) | 2022-11-10 → 2026-11-10 |
| Dollar floor | None |
| Awarding agency | None (all) |
| Unit of analysis | One record = one prime award. Modifications are rolled into the award and are not counted separately. |
| Records matching filters | 35 |
| Awards analyzed | 35 |
| Award start-date range (earliest to latest, within the analyzed set) | 2022-01-12 → 2026-06-12 |
| Detail records fetched | 34 |
Excluded
- IDV (indefinite delivery vehicle) parent records — a ceiling to order against, not an award of work
- Subawards
- Grants, loans and direct payments
Selection: A complete census of every award matching these filters.
Detail subset: All 34 awards with a detail record on file, out of 35 analyzed, were examined. Offer counts, set-aside and contracting office are known only for these 34 awards.
How it is calculated
- Percentiles use linear interpolation — the same definition as a spreadsheet's PERCENTILE function.
- HHI is the sum of each supplier's percentage share of value, squared. Every analyzed award is attributed to a supplier, so this is exact for this population.
- Spelling variants of one company are merged by official identifier (UEI) or normalized name, never on name similarity alone. Uncertain cases are left unmerged and counted in the data-quality panel.
- A percentage's denominator is the number of records that carry that field. Records without it are excluded from the denominator.
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-11-10
16Sources
Where does each part of this page come from?
This solicitation
Primary: the solicitation — SAM.gov notice ↗
Historical award activity
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-11-10
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.
Related opportunities
OkinawaSupplies & equipmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. N4008427Q1000 PROCUREMENT OF SEMI-TRAILER LOW BED FOR NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND FAR EAST, OKINAWA
Posted 2026-11-09· Response deadline 2026-12-09· Related by: same category
Supplies & equipmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. N4008426Q1022 PROCUREMENT OF CRANES FOR NAVFAC FAR EAST
Posted 2026-10-13· Closed· Related by: same category
Supplies & equipmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST
ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) AND NETWORK SWITCHES, NAVFAC FAR EAST
Posted 2026-05-07· Closed· Related by: same category
Supplies & equipmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST
DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL (DDC), NAVFAC FAR EAST
Posted 2026-05-07· Closed· Related by: same category
Hashike is an independent service, not affiliated with or endorsed by the US Government, Department of Defense, or SAM.gov. Built entirely on public data (SAM.gov, USAspending.gov). Information only — not legal advice. Confirm eligibility and requirements against the official SAM.gov listing before you bid.