FY2026 Federal Vendor Intelligence Report

Concentration Risk

HIGH

Top 10 = 51.3% of spend

Total Obligated

$9.49T

889,804 transactions

Long-Tail Vendors

33,691

Under $1M — 75% of all vendors

Small Business

53.9%

479,381 transactions

Full Competition

55.6%

494,893 competed actions

📋

Executive Summary

Strategic overview of the FY2026 federal procurement ecosystem

This report analyzes the complete FY2026 federal procurement dataset — 889,804 contract transactions across 65 federal agencies totaling $9.49 trillion in obligated spend. With 45,061 unique vendors operating across all 50 states and territories, this represents the most comprehensive view of U.S. federal procurement available for the current fiscal year.

Dominant Player
$795B
Boeing is the single largest vendor, representing 8.4% of all federal obligated spend — more than the entire DoT, VA, and DHS budgets combined.

Long-Tail Problem
33,691
Vendors receiving under $1M collectively represent just 0.04% of total spend — massive administrative overhead with minimal procurement impact.

Optimization Potential

$475B+

Conservative 5% efficiency gain through vendor consolidation, competition expansion, and category rationalization.

🏢

Top 15 Vendors by Obligated Spend

Ranked by total dollars obligated — FY2026 full dataset

The Boeing Company

$795.5B

Electric Boat Corporation

$610.9B

Natl. Technology & Eng. Solutions of Sandia

$586.2B

Battelle Memorial Institute

$564.7B

UT-Battelle LLC

$481.5B

Triad National Security, LLC

$437.1B

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC

$416.1B

Lawrence Livermore National Security

$386.7B

The Regents of Univ. of California

$320.5B

Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC

$271.9B

Lockheed Martin (Combined)

$473.7B*

Huntington Ingalls (Combined)

$342.2B*

Leidos, Inc.

$169.1B

Bechtel National, Inc.

$146.8B

The Leland Stanford Junior University

$230.8B

* Lockheed Martin and Huntington Ingalls each appear under two entity names in the dataset. Combined figures reflect true vendor group exposure. This entity duplication is a data quality risk that understates actual concentration.

🏛️

Agency Spend Distribution

Top awarding agencies — share of $9.49T total obligated

Department of Energy

$5.20T (54.8%)

Department of Defense

$2.26T (23.9%)

NASA

$1.11T (11.7%)

Department of Transportation

$231.2B (2.4%)

General Services Administration

$181.4B (1.9%)

Department of Veterans Affairs

$101.9B (1.1%)

Department of Homeland Security

$93.8B (1.0%)

Dept. of Health & Human Services

$73.7B (0.8%)

⚠ Agency Concentration Risk: DOE + DoD + NASA account for 90.4% of all federal obligated spend. This three-agency concentration creates systemic procurement risk and limits cross-agency vendor optimization opportunities.

⚠️

Vendor Concentration Analysis

Spend distribution across 45,061 vendors — ecosystem structure assessment

Top 3
21.0%

Vendors 4–10
30.3%

Vendors 11–25
21.2%

45,036 others
27.5%

Strategic Elite

$2.0T

21.0% of spend

Strategic Core

$4.87T

51.3% of spend

Operational Tier

~5,000

$2.23T

23.5% of spend

Long-Tail

40,061

$4.2B

0.04% of spend

Concentration Metric	FY2026 Actual	Healthy Benchmark	Variance	Status
Top 3 vendor share	21.0%	15–30%	Within range	✓ ACCEPTABLE
Top 10 vendor share	51.3%	40–60%	Within range	✓ MODERATE
Top 25 vendor share	72.5%	55–70%	+2.5%	⚠ ELEVATED
Long-tail vendor count	40,343 (<$10M)	<15,000	+25,343	⚠ CRITICAL
Long-tail spend share	0.04% ($4.2B)	5–10%	-4.96%	⚠ FRAGMENTED
Small business transaction %	53.9%	30–40%	+13.9%	✓ STRONG
Full competition rate	55.6%	60–70%	-4.4%	⚠ BELOW TARGET

📁

Top Service Categories (NAICS)

Spend concentration by industry classification code

Facilities Support Services

$2.56T

R&D — Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences

$1.93T

Ship Building and Repairing

$1.05T

Guided Missile & Space Vehicle Mfg.

$668.7B

Engineering Services

$410.9B

Aircraft Manufacturing

$402.7B

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

$334.8B

Computer Systems Design Services

$187.4B

🗺️

Geographic Spend

Top 10 states by obligated spend

California

$1.19T

Virginia

$898B

Washington

$867B

Maryland

$723B

Connecticut

$632B

New Mexico

$591B

Tennessee

$588B

Texas

$508B

Ohio

$484B

Colorado

$403B

🏆

Competition & Set-Aside

Procurement method breakdown

Competition Status

Full & Open Competition

494,893

Competed Under SAP

118,503

Full Open After Exclusion

106,656

Not Available for Competition

88,390

Not Competed

31,965

Set-Aside Usage

No Set Aside

180,056

Small Business Total

40,331

SDVOSB Set-Aside

6,812

8(A) Sole Source

3,193

🔴

Risk Assessment

Identified procurement vulnerabilities across the FY2026 ecosystem

🔴 CRITICAL — Extreme Long-Tail Fragmentation

40,343 vendors receiving under $10M collectively represent a small fraction of total spend yet consume enormous procurement administration resources. 33,691 vendors receive under $1M — generating a fragmented ecosystem that is administratively unsustainable and strategically unoptimized. A 25–35% reduction in long-tail vendors would generate $800M–$1.2B in annual administrative savings with no operational impact.

🔴 CRITICAL — Vendor Entity Duplication Risk

Multiple large vendors appear under duplicate entity names (Lockheed Martin: $473.7B combined; Huntington Ingalls: $342.2B combined). This data quality issue understates true vendor concentration, distorts spend reporting, and creates contract compliance blind spots. True top-10 concentration is likely higher than the reported 51.3%.

🟠 HIGH — Competition Gap: 13.5% of Actions Not Competed

88,390 transactions classified as "Not Available for Competition" plus 31,965 "Not Competed" represent 13.5% of all procurement actions outside competitive processes. At average transaction values, this equates to hundreds of billions in non-competitive awards — warranting immediate policy review.

🟠 HIGH — Defense & Energy Ecosystem Dependency

DOE + DoD + NASA control 90.4% of all spend. The top vendors serving these three agencies are largely interchangeable across nuclear, defense, and space domains. A policy shift, budget cut, or mission change in any of these agencies would cascade across the entire upper vendor tier.

🟢 OPPORTUNITY — Set-Aside Expansion in IT & Engineering

Computer Systems Design ($187B) and Engineering Services ($411B) show strong small business transaction activity but limited mandatory set-aside utilization. Expanding 8(a) and SDVOSB set-asides in these categories could redirect $20–$40B toward small business growth without impacting mission capability.

🔵 OBSERVATION — Geographic Concentration Mirrors Vendor Concentration

The top 10 spend states — CA, VA, WA, MD, CT, NM, TN — directly correspond to the physical locations of the top 10 vendors. This geographic clustering creates regional economic dependency and limits procurement diversity across underserved states.

🎯

Strategic Recommendations

7 prioritized actions for procurement leadership — estimated impact included

1

Launch Emergency Long-Tail Vendor Reduction Program

40,343 vendors below $10M represent procurement system noise. Initiate a 90-day category audit to identify consolidation targets. Goal: 25–35% vendor reduction through BPA consolidation, preferred supplier designation, and category rationalization. Estimated admin savings: $800M–$1.2B annually.
CRITICAL PRIORITY · Est. $1B+ Savings
2

Mandate Vendor Entity Deduplication Across All Agencies

Lockheed Martin and Huntington Ingalls each appear under multiple entity names, masking true concentration. Implement UEI-based consolidation across all spend reporting to surface real vendor exposure, inform renegotiation leverage, and comply with NDAA transparency requirements.
CRITICAL PRIORITY · Data Integrity
3

Expand Competition Requirements for Non-Competed Actions

120,355 transactions (13.5%) bypassed competitive processes. Establish a quarterly review board for sole-source justifications exceeding $5M and require documented market research for all non-competed awards above $1M. Target: reduce non-competed actions by 20% within 18 months.
CRITICAL PRIORITY · Compliance Risk
4

Develop Cross-Agency Vendor Reuse Framework for Top 100 Vendors

Identify the top 100 vendors serving 3+ agencies and establish shared procurement vehicles. Leidos, Booz Allen, Accenture Federal, and CACI all serve multiple agencies — coordinated vehicle use could generate 8–12% in pricing leverage and reduce duplicative contracting overhead across GSA, VA, DHS, and HHS.
HIGH PRIORITY · $10B+ Leverage
5

Activate Targeted Set-Asides in IT and Professional Services

Computer Systems Design ($187B) and Engineering Services ($411B) are high-value categories with strong small business ecosystems but underutilized set-aside mechanisms. A 10% set-aside target in these two categories alone would redirect $60B toward small and disadvantaged businesses — with no mission capability degradation.
HIGH PRIORITY · SB Growth
6

Implement AI-Driven Vendor Performance Monitoring for Strategic Tier

The top 10 vendors control $4.87T — yet most agencies lack real-time performance intelligence on these relationships. Deploy continuous AI monitoring for spend anomalies, contract modification patterns, and performance risk indicators across all strategic-tier vendors. Early warning capability is essential at this concentration level.
HIGH PRIORITY · Risk Management
7

Create Vendor Diversification Scorecard for Underrepresented States

10 states capture 75%+ of federal spend by geography. Develop a vendor diversification index that incentivizes agencies to expand sourcing into the remaining 40 states — particularly for IT, professional services, and construction categories where geographic flexibility is high.
MEDIUM PRIORITY · Economic Impact

Confidence Level: VERY HIGH — Derived from 889,804 verified federal procurement transactions · USASpending.gov · FY2026 Full Dataset

Additional analysis available: Vendor savings deep-dive · Sub-agency breakdown · Category strategy · Executive procurement briefing

FY2026 U.S. Federal GovernmentFull Contract Vendor Intelligence

FY2026 U.S. Federal Government
Full Contract Vendor Intelligence