About $7.05B to BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems — the legacy record left in the description carries a different company name (Army TACOM, begun 2003)
A definitive contract administered by the Defense Contract Management Agency. Obligations total about $7,052.77 million over a period from 2003-04-17 to 2009-11-30. The description holds a fixed-width record from an older procurement data system, and the company name written there differs from the current recipient name.
Contract key facts
- RecipientBAE SYSTEMS TACTICAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS LP
- Contract value$7,052,768,925 (≈$7.05B)
- BranchDefense-wide
- Awarding agencyDepartment of Defense
- Awarding sub-agencyDefense Contract Management Agency
- Award typeDEFINITIVE CONTRACT
- Period of performance2003-04-17 〜 2009-11-30
- Contract ID (PIID)DAAE0703CS023
Contract scope (original)
200502!000833!2100!W56HZV!TACOM - WARREN !DAAE0703CS023 !A!N! !N! !P00031!20041101!20081115!557414000!557414000!007932783!N!STEWART & STEVENSON TACTICAL V!5000 INTERSTATE 10 HWY !SEALY !TX!77474!66464!015!48!SEALY !AUSTIN !TEXAS !+000000569789!N!N!000000000000!2320!TRUCKS AND TRUCK TRACTORS, WHEELED !A4B!NON-COMBAT VEHICLES !746 !FMTV !336212!E! !3! ! !D! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!Y!J!2!002!N!1G!A!N!F! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !
Key points
- The recipient field and the legacy record in the description carry different company names, and the record does not explain why.
- The description holds the Army command at Warren, the contract number, the modification number, dates, and an older company name and address in fixed width.
- Of the 207 Department of Defense contracts this site holds as of 2026-09-01, 15 carry this older format and 15 have an empty description.
- The period runs from 2003-04-17 to 2009-11-30, or 6.6 years, and has ended.
- Obligations are about $7,052.77 million and outlays are recorded as zero.
- Thirty of the 207 Department of Defense contracts held as of 2026-09-01, 14 percent, give no reading of what was procured.
1Two company names sit in one record
The recipient field carries the tactical vehicle arm of BAE Systems. Inside the older record left in the description sits a different company name and an address in Sealy, Texas.
The record does not explain why two names appear. Where a merger or a transfer of business occurs, the name on a contract moves to the new party while past records stay as they were. Keeping public data over a long span produces such overlaps. Entity resolution has to settle in advance which name is treated as the party.
2An older record left in the description
What the description holds is not an account of the procurement but a fixed-width record separated by exclamation marks. Lined up in it are what looks like a fiscal year, 200502, the Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command at Warren as the awarding office, the contract number, the modification number, dates, and the recipient name and address.
Of the 207 Department of Defense contracts this site holds as of 2026-09-01, fifteen carry this format. Another fifteen have an empty description. Together thirty, or 14 percent of the whole, give no reading of what was procured. Mixed generations of format come with public data kept over time.
3The period is 6.6 years and has ended
The period runs from 2003-04-17 to 2009-11-30, or 6.6 years. Across the 207 Department of Defense contracts this site holds as of 2026-09-01 the median period is 10.7 years, with 68 falling between five and ten.
Obligations are about $7,052.77 million and outlays are recorded as zero. The contract ended in 2009, so payment still to come is hard to credit. Of the same 207, outlays are zero on 115 and 62 of those are past their end date. This record is one of them.
Why it matters
Resolving recipient names is unavoidable when reading public data by company. A name changed through merger or transfer leaves past records under the old one. Company-level aggregation drifts from reality unless the same business appearing under several names is assumed from the start.
FAQ
Why are there two company names?
What is the string in the description?
Which name should be counted?
Sources (primary)
This article is an independent organization based on the U.S. official spending data below. Verify the exact, latest details with the official source.
- USAspending (award details)
- Contract ID (PIID)：DAAE0703CS023