Twenty-Nine Notices Named the Incumbent Out Loud
In the 48 hours to Thursday morning, 1,922 active DoD notices went up and 29 of them typed a contractor's name into the body text. The Navy wrote 22 of those. Inside: the bridge that admits it is one, a $945.9M sole source, and a SeaPort recompete whose notice spells its own incumbent wrong.
Most of the procurement record makes you work for the incumbent's name.
You pull the PIID, walk the mod history, reconcile a CAGE code against three spellings of the same corporate suffix, and hope the task order you want was reported.
And then some contracting officer just types it.
We swept every active DoD notice published between Tuesday morning and this morning, across all nine live notice types: 1,922 of them. Exactly 29 name a company in the body as the current performer, the intended awardee, or the only responsible source.
That is 1.5%.
The useful part is where they sit (chart below).
The Navy published 426 notices and named a contractor in 22. DLA published 1,185 and named one in 3.
Per hundred notices that is 5.16 against 0.25, a 20x gap, and the rest of the department rounds to nothing.
Some of that is composition. DLA's board is NSNs and the Navy's is intents to sole source, which is a form that requires the name.
The read survives anyway: if you mine notice bodies for incumbents, you are mining the Navy and almost nothing else.
Monday's radar counted the other half of this question, the notices that say "follow-on" or "recompete" in the title, and found five distinct requirements in 2,368. Bodies run about six times richer than titles.
Neither number is large.
Here is what the 29 said.
The rest of this brief is for subscribers.
The specific solicitations, dockets, and dates to act on sit past this line.
$50 a month, or $500 a year.
Already a subscriber? Sign in