A large competition for government procurements helps government agencies and departments reduce expenses and allow more small businesses to win Federal Government prime contracts. For many years, this issue has been of great interest for the Government. For this reason, for many years the U.S. Government Accountability Office has suggested the promotion of competition by contracting officials; improving efforts and focusing on decreasing obligations under high-risk contracts, including those awarded as noncompetitive.
Efforts and approaches are constantly being made for more simplified acquisition methods to stimulate competition for federal contract awards. Greater competition means better value offered by contractors and fewer expenses for the Government.
The Federal Government can exploit competitive contracts to reduce expenses, improve contractor performance, and increase responsibility and accountability for best results. The advantages of competition in acquiring supplies and services from contractors are firmly established. Generally, agencies are required to use competitive contracts; however, a great number of procurements are awarded on non- competitive contracts each year. Federal agencies must award contracts that all possible contractors can compete for using full and open competition methodology. Exceptions can be applied in special occasions.
For instance, under urgent circumstances or in cases when only one source provides the required services or products, federal agencies are not required to award competitive contracts. In addition, these types of contracts may not be required for contracts below certain dollar values or some contract awarded under Small Business Administration (SBA) program.
Competition has a significant impact on the federal acquisition system and is essential to achieve the best possible return on annual government investments.
Top 10 Government Contractors of United States for FY 2015 and 2016
The following tables list Top 10 U.S. contractors, the number of actions, dollars obligated, the percentage of total actions and dollars.
Global Vendor Name | Number of Actions | Dollars Obligated | %Total Actions | %Total Dollars |
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION | 173,114 | $43,399,390,153.13 | 0.8685% | 9.1723% |
THE BOEING COMPANY | 14,223 | $26,496,633,956.21 | 0.0714% | 5.6000% |
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION | 25,755 | $14,501,361,143.91 | 0.1292% | 3.0648% |
RAYTHEON COMPANY | 11,732 | $13,474,488,536.89 | 0.0589% | 2.8478% |
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION | 11,359 | $11,908,200,324.79 | 0.0570% | 2.5168% |
MCKESSON CORPORATION | 110,844 | $8,635,682,448.82 | 0.5561% | 1.8251% |
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION | 22,059 | $6,473,518,210.50 | 0.1107% | 1.3682% |
BAE SYSTEMS PLC | 11,339 | $5,146,911,642.83 | 0.0569% | 1.0878% |
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC. | 8,055 | $5,064,501,310.58 | 0.0404% | 1.0704% |
BECHTEL GROUP INC. | 142 | $4,928,575,472.79 | 0.0007% | 1.0416% |
Table 3. Top 10 U.S. Government Contractors in FY 2016
Global Vendor Name | Number of Actions | Dollars Obligated | %Total Actions | %Total Dollars |
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION | 121,387 | $36,259,911,070.83 | 0.6866% | 8.2999% |
THE BOEING COMPANY | 13,201 | $16,646,781,379.52 | 0.0747% | 3.8104% |
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION | 21,945 | $13,632,984,913.57 | 0.1241% | 3.1206% |
RAYTHEON COMPANY | 10,554 | $13,114,246,704.69 | 0.0597% | 3.0018% |
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION | 11,628 | $10,637,246,770.72 | 0.0658% | 2.4349% |
MCKESSON CORPORATION | 106,371 | $8,358,491,280.54 | 0.6017% | 1.9133% |
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION | 25,400 | $6,792,039,706.41 | 0.1437% | 1.5547% |
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC. | 8,493 | $5,450,824,009.65 | 0.0480% | 1.2477% |
BECHTEL GROUP INC. | 201 | $4,645,069,049.63 | 0.0011% | 1.0633% |
BAE SYSTEMS PLC | 10,541 | $4,436,736,025.43 | 0.0596% | 1.0156% |
Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Government Contractors in FY 2015
For two fiscal years in a row, 2015-2016, the top awardee is Lockheed Martin. Only in FY 2016, it received $43.39 billion in prime contracts or 9.2% of total contract funds awarded by the U.S. Government.
Take a look and give us your thoughts if you think that these trends will bring any changes in government procurements.