Worked example: this is the full analysis a Hashike account shows for this opportunity. Data as of Oct 31, 2026.
What is being purchased?
Original English — the controlling text
Open the official source on SAM.gov ↗
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AMENDMENT 0002. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AMENDMENT 0001 AND Q&A 0001. RFP N3220527R6015 IS HEREBY RELEASED. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.
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.
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: moderate — 134 analyzed awards, 20 suppliers, 2 buying organizations, 3 contracting offices. 6.7 awards per supplier, and repeat suppliers account for 95%.
How large is the comparable market, and what shape is it?
Comparable demand
134
public award records with activity recorded between 2022-10-31 and 2026-10-31, using last-modified date as a proxy for USAspending's action-date window (an award may have started earlier)
Place of performance Japan, NAICS 483111, prime awards only. No dollar floor applied.
Typical award value
$6.0M
Middle 50%: $2.2M–$8.3M
of 134 analyzed comparable awards
Median and quartiles. The median leads because a mean is pulled by a few very large awards.
Observed competition
25
Single offer: 6/134
of the 134 awards with a reported offer count
Offer counts appear only on award detail records. Of all 134 awards with a detail record on file, 134 reported an offer count; 6 of those recorded a single offer. The remaining 0 analyzed awards have no detail record. These percentages cannot be applied to awards without a detail record.
Supplier concentration
43%
Top 5: 87% · 20 suppliers
by observed value across 134 analyzed awards
Share of the federal awards analyzed here — not commercial market share in this sector.
Observed recurrence
29.0/yr
116 / 4.0 yr
comparable awards that began within the observation window
18 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
6
US 124 · Other 4
of 134 awards with a recorded supplier country (0 unknown)
Supplier location is an observed characteristic. It does not establish eligibility, which is set by each solicitation.
Evidence strength
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 2026-10-31
What have comparable awards been worth?
| Count | 134 |
| Minimum | $154 |
| 25th percentile | $2,191,895 |
| Median | $6,038,757 |
| 75th percentile | $8,290,316 |
| Maximum | $88,410,429 |
| Mean | $7,018,197 |
| Standard deviation | $10,360,679 |
| Interquartile range | $6,098,421 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.48 |
| Total | $940,438,355 |
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 134 analyzed awards.
Of the 134 awards examined in detail, 134 carried a recorded ceiling (Base and All Options Value). Its median was $6,038,757, against a median obligated amount of $6,038,757 across the same 134 awards — 1.0x. 131 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.
How frequently have comparable awards occurred?
Awards per year
29.0
Quarterly 7.3 · Monthly 2.4
116 awards over the 4.0-year observation window
Median days between awards
7 days
Middle 50%: 0–24 days
across 115 consecutive award pairs
Most recent comparable award
2026-06-24
134 days ago
observed range 2022-11-01 to 2026-06-24
Awards that began earlier
18
analyzed awards that began before the window and were still active within it
Ongoing work rather than new demand, so it is excluded from the frequency figures above.
| Year | Count | Total | Median | Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | $40.1M | $6.2M | Partial year |
| 2023 | 29 | $163.1M | $6.1M | Full year |
| 2024 | 34 | $210.1M | $4.7M | Full year |
| 2025 | 33 | $153.5M | $6.0M | Full year |
| 2026 | 13 | $121.0M | $6.2M | Partial year |
Historical award activity. It does not indicate when or whether comparable requirements will be solicited again.
How many offers have comparable procurements reported?
The population behind this statistic
Median reported offers
25
Mean 18.9 · Range 1–29
of the 134 awards with a reported offer count
Awards reporting a single offer
6 / 134
4%
of the 134 awards with a reported offer count
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
128 / 134
96%
of the 134 awards with a reported offer count
Offer count unavailable
0
Not detail-fetched 0 · No record 0
of 134 analyzed comparable awards
Distribution of reported offers
The competition procedure the buying office recorded in FPDS. It does not govern who may bid on this solicitation.
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-31
Who has historically performed comparable work?
| Supplier | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value | Median | First | Latest | Country |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | 45.5% | $402.3M | 42.8% | $6.5M | 2016-06-30 | 2026-04-01 | USA | |
| 12 | 9.0% | $180.7M | 19.2% | $5.6M | 2019-07-12 | 2026-06-24 | USA | |
| 13 | 9.7% | $89.7M | 9.5% | $6.1M | 2022-04-01 | 2023-08-01 | USA | |
| 7 | 5.2% | $77.8M | 8.3% | $8.3M | 2020-03-17 | 2024-10-30 | USA | |
| 9 | 6.7% | $68.2M | 7.2% | $8.1M | 2024-06-25 | 2026-03-19 | USA | |
| 6 | 4.5% | $38.8M | 4.1% | $5.3M | 2024-04-25 | 2025-11-24 | USA | |
| 4 | 3.0% | $19.6M | 2.1% | $4.4M | 2021-07-01 | 2023-05-01 | USA | |
| 3 | 2.2% | $13.8M | 1.5% | $4.1M | 2023-05-26 | 2024-10-03 | JPN | |
| 3 | 2.2% | $11.9M | 1.3% | $3.3M | 2023-02-01 | 2023-08-01 | USA | |
| 1 | 0.7% | $10.4M | 1.1% | $10.4M | 2026-03-11 | 2026-03-11 | SGP |
Distinct suppliers
20
of 134 analyzed comparable awards
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
43%
By award count: 46%
by observed value across 134 analyzed awards
Top 5 supplier share
87%
By award count: 76%
by observed value across 134 analyzed awards
HHI (moderately concentrated)
2,439
computed over every supplier in the 134 analyzed awards
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.
Suppliers with one award
7
of 20 suppliers
Two awards
3
of 20 suppliers
Three or more
10
of 20 suppliers
Awards to repeat suppliers
95%
Median days to repeat award: 31
of 134 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.
Who is buying this work?
Buying organizations (share of value)
2 buying organizations account for the 134 analyzed awards; the largest holds 57% of observed value.
Contracting offices
| Contracting office | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value | Median | First | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 67.2% | $537.5M | 57.2% | $6.0M | 2016-06-30 | 2026-04-01 | |
| 41 | 30.6% | $402.2M | 42.8% | $6.3M | 2019-07-12 | 2026-06-24 | |
| 3 | 2.2% | $728K | 0.1% | $229K | 2024-07-17 | 2025-11-04 |
Contracting office appears only on detail records, so this covers the 134 awards examined in detail, out of 134 analyzed. Concentration at a single office may indicate a recurring requirement specific to that office.
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.
61 · $402.3M · latest 2026-04-01
13 · $89.7M · latest 2023-08-01
12 · $180.7M · latest 2026-06-24
9 · $68.2M · latest 2026-03-19
7 · $77.8M · latest 2024-10-30
Derived from the 134 analyzed comparable awards. It does not imply that other suppliers will not bid.
Where are the suppliers based, and where is the work performed?
| Location | Count | Share of awards | Amount | Share of value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | 6 | 4.5% | $14.5M | 1.5% |
| United States | 124 | 92.5% | $905.6M | 96.3% |
| Other (DENMARK, IRELAND, SINGAPORE) | 4 | 3.0% | $20.4M | 2.2% |
| Unknown | 0 | — | — | — |
Shares are over the 134 of 134 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.
Japan 134 · Other 0 · Not recorded 0. Place of performance is the filter that scoped this comparable set — a separate field from supplier location.
IGF::OT::IGF CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SHIPMENTS MADE BY DECENTRALIZED ORDERING OFFICERS
USTRANSCOM · USTRANSCOM-AQ · 2016-06-30〜2022-06-30 · USAspending ↗
N103B/PM5 - S. KUNCKEN - SHALLOW DRAFT TANKER AWARD
Department of the Navy · MSCHQ NORFOLK · 2019-07-12〜2024-07-01 · USAspending ↗
180-DAY DRY CARGO TIME CHARTER W/ ONE 180-DAY OPTION PERIOD
Department of the Navy · MSCHQ NORFOLK · 2026-06-24〜2026-12-20 · USAspending ↗
N103/N351B R. NORRIS FE SHALLOW DRAFT TANKER 1 - SLNC PAX
Department of the Navy · MSCHQ NORFOLK · 2024-09-05〜2026-09-28 · USAspending ↗
N103B/N351B TANKERS/A.SMITH/ FE SHALLOW DRAFT TANKER #2
Department of the Navy · MSCHQ NORFOLK · 2024-10-30〜2026-10-20 · USAspending ↗
CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SHIPMENTS MADE BY DECENTRALIZED ORDERING OFFICERS
USTRANSCOM · USTRANSCOM-AQ · 2022-04-01〜2022-06-30 · USAspending ↗
120-DAY TANKER TIME CHARTER
Department of the Navy · MSCHQ NORFOLK · 2026-04-30〜2026-09-16 · USAspending ↗
CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SHIPMENTS MADE BY DECENTRALIZED ORDERING OFFICERS
USTRANSCOM · USTRANSCOM-AQ · 2021-10-01〜2021-12-31 · 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.
Does a set-aside restrict who may bid?
This solicitation
No Set aside used
As stated on SAM.gov
Comparable historical awards
Of the 134 awards examined in detail, 134 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.
What is observed, what it may mean, and what it does not establish
A possible implication is an interpretation, not a finding. Public award data cannot establish cause.
What to verify before deciding whether to pursue this
Who performed the most recent comparable award, and what does the public record show about it?
← The most recent comparable award started 2026-06-24.
Is the same supplier repeatedly serving this contracting office, and is there evidence of an incumbent relationship?
← AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LLC holds 61 of the analyzed comparable awards.
Are comparable requirements typically competed, or does the record show limited-source procedures?
← Of the 134 awards with a recorded competition procedure, the most common is "FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES".
Are awards concentrated among a small number of suppliers, and are the larger awards concentrated among particular ones?
← The top five suppliers hold 87% of observed value.
How much comparable work has gone to Japan-based suppliers, and is there evidence of subcontracting or teaming?
← 6 of the 134 awards with a known supplier country went to Japan-based firms.
How many contracting offices buy this, or is it one office's recurring requirement?
← The 134 analyzed awards span 3 contracting offices.
What eligibility and registration requirements appear in this notice — SAM registration, NCAGE, export controls, installation access?
What is missing from the public record, and what should be raised with the contracting office during the question period?
How complete and reliable is the evidence?
Missingness by field
| Field | Missing | Of | Missing share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award amount | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Award start date | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Supplier name | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Supplier UEI (identifier used to resolve entities) | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Reported offer count (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Supplier country | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Set-aside (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Contracting office (of records examined in detail) | 0 | 134 | 0.0% |
| Award description | 0 | 134 | 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.
What remains unknown after everything above
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.
Which awards were included, and how was everything calculated?
| Place of performance | Japan (JPN) |
| NAICS | 483111 |
| Award type | A, B, C, D — prime awards only |
| Recorded activity window (last-modified date) | 2022-10-31 → 2026-10-31 |
| 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 | 134 |
| Awards analyzed | 134 |
| Award start-date range (earliest to latest, within the analyzed set) | 2016-06-30 → 2026-06-24 |
| Detail records fetched | 134 |
Excluded
Selection: A complete census of every award matching these filters.
How it is calculated
Official procurement database — USAspending.gov federal award data synced to Hashike ↗ · Retrieved 2026-10-31
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 2026-10-31
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.
Posted 2026-10-29· Response deadline 2026-11-09· Related by: same category
Posted 2026-10-28· Response deadline 2026-11-11· Related by: same category
Posted 2026-10-21· Response deadline 2026-11-20· Related by: same category
Posted 2026-11-01· Response deadline 2026-12-01· Related by: same category
Posted 2026-10-23· 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.