NagasakiFacilities & O&M

Custodial Services at Commander Fleet Activities, Sasebo (CFAS), Japan.

Worked example: this is the full analysis a Hashike account shows for this opportunity. Data as of Oct 29, 2026.

Agency
Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Far EastDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST
Notice type
Sources Sought
Status
Open
NAICS
561720
PSC
S201
Posted
2026-10-28
Response due
Dec 1, 2026, 10:00 JST (31 days left)
Place of performance
Nagasaki

Requirement

What is being purchased?

Original English — the controlling text

Open the official source on SAM.gov ↗

The intent of this notice is to identify potential offerors for market research purposes. The Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) Far East, Resident Officer in Charge of Construction (ROICC) Sasebo, is currently seeking interested contractors who are willing and qualified to provide to perform Custodial Services at Commander Fleet Activities, Sasebo (CFAS), Japan. The Government is contemplating a multiple year (one year base period and seven one-year option periods) ordering period, single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type performance based service contract comprised of Recurring Work and Non-Recurring Work Items. PWS for the contemplated renewal IDIQ(s) is still under development, but will be substantially similar. The Government is contemplating issuing a Commercial solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12.The Government intends to issue the solicitation as an Invitation for Bids (IFB) in accordance with (IAW) FAR 14 or Request for Proposal (RFP) IAW FAR 15. If you are capable of and interested in performing this requirement, please complete and submit Questions Comments and Market Research: Contractor Information. Please provide any comments/recommendations/questions in this form. The response will be used as market research to help determine the acquisition method utilized by the Government for this requirement. In order to be eligible for any U.S. Government award, a contractor must register in the System for Award Management at www.sam.gov and have a valid CAGE code. Interested contractors are encouraged to begin the registration process as soon as possible. Please submit the information to Hirokazu Toyofuku, Contract Specialist via e-mail at hirokazu.toyofuku.ln@us.navy.mil no later than 10:00 am on 30 November 2026, using the subject line Sources Sought Custodial Services at CFAS, Japan. Contracting Office Address: NAVFAC Far East, ROICC Sasebo, PSC 476 BOX 71 FPO AP 96322-0066Point of Contact(s): Hirokazu Toyofuku, Contract Specialist, 81-956-50-2395, hirokazu.toyofuku.ln@us.navy.mil Amy A. Wong, Contracting Officer, 81-956-50-3469, amy.a.wong.civ@us.navy.mil

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 — 196 analyzed awards, 33 suppliers, 6 buying organizations, 12 contracting offices. 5.9 awards per supplier, and repeat suppliers account for 95%.

02Market intelligence

How large is the comparable market, and what shape is it?

Comparable demand

196

public award records with activity recorded between 2022-10-29 and 2026-10-29, 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 561720, prime awards only. No dollar floor applied.

Typical award value

$127K

Middle 50%: $25K–$539K

of 196 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

3

Single offer: 10/71

of the 71 awards with a reported offer count

How this is calculated

Offer counts appear only on award detail records. Of all 195 awards with a detail record on file, 71 reported an offer count; 10 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

27%

Top 5: 66% · 33 suppliers

by observed value across 196 analyzed awards

How this is calculated

Share of the federal awards analyzed here — not commercial market share in this sector.

Observed recurrence

37.3/yr

149 / 4.0 yr

comparable awards that began within the observation window

How this is calculated

47 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

187

US 9 · Other 0

of 196 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 196 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 2026-10-29

Offer counts, set-aside and contracting office exist only on per-award detail records; 195 of the 196 analyzed awards were examined in detail. All 195 awards with a detail record on file, out of 196 analyzed, were examined. Award value, dates, supplier name and supplier location are known for all 196.

03Award economics

What have comparable awards been worth?

Median $127K$10$100$1K$10K$100K$1M
Minimum
$2
25th percentile
$25K
Median
$127K
75th percentile
$539K
Maximum
$6.5M
Mean
$557K
Each dot is one of the 194 analyzed comparable awards, placed by award value. The scale is logarithmic: $500K to $1M takes the same width as $5M to $10M. The axis starts at $1.5, the smallest award analyzed.

The mean ($557K) is substantially above the median ($127K) because several unusually large awards are included — the largest 10% of awards account for 57% of total observed value. The median is the better guide to a typical award.

Full distribution statistics
Count194
Minimum$2
25th percentile$25,019
Median$127,371
75th percentile$538,861
Maximum$6,485,120
Mean$557,099
Standard deviation$1,081,641
Interquartile range$513,842
Coefficient of variation1.94
Total$108,077,276

Percentiles use linear interpolation — the same definition as a spreadsheet's PERCENTILE function. 2 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 196 analyzed awards.

Ceiling value (detail-examined subset)

Of the 195 awards examined in detail, 193 carried a recorded ceiling (Base and All Options Value). Its median was $133,355, against a median obligated amount of $129,418 across the same 193 awards — 1.0x. 128 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

37.3

Quarterly 9.3 · Monthly 3.1

149 awards over the 4.0-year observation window

Median days between awards

5 days

Middle 50%: 0–14 days

across 148 consecutive award pairs

Most recent comparable award

2026-09-16

45 days ago

observed range 2022-10-31 to 2026-09-16

Awards that began earlier

47

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.

020406082022partial502023362024332025222026partialAwards
149 of the 196 analyzed awards, counted by the calendar year each award began. Awards that began before the observation window are not counted.Hatched years fall only partly inside the observation window, so their counts look lower than a full year's. The most recent months also run low because the Department of Defense releases contract data to USAspending about 90 days after award. This is past activity and does not indicate future demand.
Annual breakdown
YearCountTotalMedianPeriod
20228$3.1M$14KPartial year
202350$15.5M$61KFull year
202436$21.4M$116KFull year
202533$18.0M$154KFull year
202622$8.9M$174KPartial 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. ① Comparable awards matching the filters: 196
  2. ② Of those, examined in detail: 195
  3. ③ Of those, with a reported offer count: 71 ← every share below is over this 71
  • Single offer reported10 of 71 · 14%
  • Two or more offers61 of 71 · 86%
Covers the 71 awards with a reported offer count. Awards without one are left out.

Median reported offers

3

Mean 3.0 · Range 1–7

of the 71 awards with a reported offer count

Awards reporting a single offer

10 / 71

14%

of the 71 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

61 / 71

86%

of the 71 awards with a reported offer count

Offer count unavailable

125

Not detail-fetched 1 · No record 124

of 196 analyzed comparable awards

Distribution of reported offers

  • 1 offer10 / 71
  • 2 offers20 / 71
  • 3 offers20 / 71
  • 4 offers8 / 71
  • 5 offers9 / 71
  • 6 offers1 / 71
  • 7 offers3 / 71
Recorded competition procedures (195 awards)
  • COMPETED UNDER SAP51.8%
  • FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION44.6%
  • NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP2.1%
  • FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES1.0%
  • NOT COMPETED0.5%

The competition procedure the buying office recorded in FPDS. It does not govern who may bid on this solicitation.

Evidence: moderate
  • Calculated from 196 public award records.

Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-29

06Competitive landscape

Who has historically performed comparable work?

  1. KOH GUMI & COMPANY26.9% of value
    20 awards (10.2% of awards)
  2. TCT MANAGEMENT J.V.11.8% of value
    5 awards (2.6% of awards)
  3. EIGHT CO.,LTD.11.4% of value
    49 awards (25.0% of awards)
  4. NIHON SOGO SEIBI CO. LTD.8.6% of value
    4 awards (2.0% of awards)
  5. A.S.Y CO., LTD.6.8% of value
    6 awards (3.1% of awards)
  6. All other suppliers (28)34.5% of value
    112 awards (57.1% of awards)
Share of observed award value across 196 analyzed awards (33 suppliers): the 5 largest suppliers by value, then all others combined. Bar length runs from 0 to 100%.
SupplierCountShare of awardsAmountShare of valueMedianFirstLatestCountry
2010.2%$29.1M26.9%$1.2M2014-10-012026-06-12JPN
52.6%$12.8M11.8%$3.9M2023-07-132025-07-24JPN
4925.0%$12.3M11.4%$124K2017-10-012026-07-02JPN
42.0%$9.3M8.6%$1.5M2022-01-252024-05-01JPN
63.1%$7.3M6.8%$831K2019-10-012025-06-18JPN
94.6%$6.7M6.2%$1.1M2022-06-232026-06-04JPN
42.0%$6.7M6.2%$933K2019-04-242025-07-18JPN
21.0%$5.9M5.5%$3.0M2022-07-202023-03-17JPN
168.2%$4.3M4.0%$146K2020-03-022026-09-16JPN
31.5%$2.3M2.1%$763K2018-03-052023-03-01JPN

Distinct suppliers

33

of 196 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

27%

By award count: 25%

by observed value across 196 analyzed awards

Top 5 supplier share

66%

By award count: 55%

by observed value across 196 analyzed awards

HHI (unconcentrated)

1,252

computed over every supplier in the 196 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

10

of 33 suppliers

Two awards

3

of 33 suppliers

Three or more

20

of 33 suppliers

Awards to repeat suppliers

95%

Median days to repeat award: 89

of 196 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 Force47.4%
  • Department of the Navy42.2%
  • Department of Defense Education Activity4.8%
  • Department of State4.2%
  • Defense Commissary Agency1.0%
  • Defense Health Agency0.4%

6 buying organizations account for the 196 analyzed awards; the largest holds 47% of observed value.

Contracting offices

Contracting officeCountShare of awardsAmountShare of valueMedianFirstLatest
4422.6%$45.1M41.7%$611K2021-07-302026-06-12
2512.8%$25.0M23.2%$209K2014-10-012026-07-02
7035.9%$16.8M15.5%$66K2019-04-242026-07-02
115.6%$9.4M8.7%$542K2016-08-102026-08-10
10.5%$5.2M4.8%$5.2M2024-05-012024-05-01
136.7%$3.1M2.8%$138K2022-06-012026-09-16
63.1%$1.3M1.2%$118K2019-06-012024-06-10
21.0%$1.0M1.0%$519K2021-03-012024-09-25
189.2%$498K0.5%$17K2021-05-262025-10-10
21.0%$467K0.4%$233K2024-08-012026-04-01

Contracting office appears only on detail records, so this covers the 195 awards examined in detail, out of 196 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.

  • EIGHT CO.,LTD.Signal: strong

    49 · $12.3M · latest 2026-07-02

    • 49 of the 196 analyzed comparable awards
    • 36 of the 48 with a known contracting office came from the same one (FA5209 374 CONS PK)
    • Most recent comparable award 2026-07-02, within 540 days of this analysis
    • That is 25% of the analyzed comparable awards
  • KOH GUMI & COMPANYSignal: moderate

    20 · $29.1M · latest 2026-06-12

    • 20 of the 196 analyzed comparable awards
    • 12 of the 20 with a known contracting office came from the same one (NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST)
    • Most recent comparable award 2026-06-12, within 540 days of this analysis
  • 16 · $4.3M · latest 2026-09-16

    • 16 of the 196 analyzed comparable awards
    • 13 of the 16 with a known contracting office came from the same one (ACQUISITIONS - RPSO FRANKFURT)
    • Most recent comparable award 2026-09-16, within 540 days of this analysis
  • 13 · $184K · latest 2025-10-10

    • 13 of the 196 analyzed comparable awards
    • 13 of the 13 with a known contracting office came from the same one (COMMANDING OFFICER)
    • Most recent comparable award 2025-10-10, within 540 days of this analysis
  • NIKOH SANGYO CO., LTD.Signal: moderate

    9 · $6.7M · latest 2026-06-04

    • 9 of the 196 analyzed comparable awards
    • 9 of the 9 with a known contracting office came from the same one (NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST)
    • Most recent comparable award 2026-06-04, within 540 days of this analysis

Derived from the 196 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?

LocationCountShare of awardsAmountShare of value
Japan18795.4%$107.0M99.0%
United States94.6%$1.1M1.0%
Unknown0———

Shares are over the 196 of 196 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 196 · 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

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

No set-aside stated

As stated on SAM.gov

Comparable historical awards

  • NO SET ASIDE USED.195

Of the 195 awards examined in detail, 195 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 195 awards with a detail record on file, 71 reported an offer count.
    ObservationAcross those 71 awards the median reported offer count is 3, and 10 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: limited
  • FactAcross the 194 analyzed awards the median value is $127K, with the middle 50% falling between $25K and $539K.
    ObservationThe mean of $557K sits well above the median: a small number of unusually large awards accounts for much of the value (the largest 10% of awards hold 57% 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
  • Fact149 comparable awards began within the observation window, the first on 2022-10-31 and the most recent on 2026-09-16. A further 47 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 37.3 awards per year, with a median of 5 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 196 analyzed awards went to 33 suppliers; the largest holds 27% of observed value and the top five hold 66%.
    ObservationThat gives an HHI of 1,252, 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 196 analyzed awards with a recorded supplier country, 187 went to Japan-based suppliers and 9 to U.S.-based suppliers.
    ObservationJapan-based suppliers account for 95% 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

  1. 01

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

    ← The most recent comparable award started 2026-09-16.

  2. 02

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

    ← EIGHT CO.,LTD. holds 49 of the analyzed comparable awards.

  3. 03

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

    ← Of the 195 awards with a recorded competition procedure, the most common is "COMPETED UNDER SAP".

  4. 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.

  5. 05

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

    ← The top five suppliers hold 66% of observed value.

  6. 06

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

    ← 187 of the 196 awards with a known supplier country went to Japan-based firms.

  7. 07

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

    ← The 196 analyzed awards span 12 contracting offices.

  8. 08

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

  9. 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 analyzed196
Records matching filters196
Detail records fetched195
Duplicates dropped0
Suppliers unresolved by official ID0
Data retrieved2026-10-29 11:05 UTC (26 hours ago)

Missingness by field

FieldMissingOfMissing share
Award amount21961.0%
Award start date01960.0%
Supplier name01960.0%
Supplier UEI (identifier used to resolve entities)01960.0%
Reported offer count (of records examined in detail)12419563.6%
Supplier country01960.0%
Set-aside (of records examined in detail)01950.0%
Contracting office (of records examined in detail)01950.0%
Award description01960.0%

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 performanceJapan (JPN)
NAICS561720
Award typeA, B, C, D — prime awards only
Recorded activity window (last-modified date)2022-10-29 → 2026-10-29
Dollar floorNone
Awarding agencyNone (all)
Unit of analysisOne record = one prime award. Modifications are rolled into the award and are not counted separately.
Records matching filters196
Awards analyzed196
Award start-date range (earliest to latest, within the analyzed set)2014-10-01 → 2026-09-16
Detail records fetched195

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 195 awards with a detail record on file, out of 196 analyzed, were examined. Offer counts, set-aside and contracting office are known only for these 195 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 2026-10-29

16Sources

Where does each part of this page come from?

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.

See this analysis for any opportunity: start the 14-day free trial

Related opportunities

DICAS priorityNagasakiShip sustainmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR YOKOSUKA

Support, Rev-01 (FO)~Well Deck Assessment

Posted 2026-10-28· Response deadline 2026-11-04· Related by: same prefecture

DICAS priorityNagasakiShip sustainmentDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR YOKOSUKA

Preserve, Passage In 4-10-6-1-L

Posted 2026-10-28· Response deadline 2026-11-12· Related by: same prefecture

NagasakiFuel & energyDEPT OF DEFENSE.DEPT OF THE NAVY.NAVFACSYSCOM FAR EAST

provide FJI Diesel fuel at CFAS Japan

Posted 2026-10-09· Response deadline 2026-11-13· Related by: same prefecture

View the official notice and how to bid on SAM.gov ↗

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.