US Public Data LabU.S. public data, made readable
Data areas
Federal Register Congress bills CISA KEV / NVD SEC EDGAR USAspending Defense contracts Trade Economy Energy Places FDA recalls AI Research Grants NIH research grants Fiscal & national debt
Tools
Search Recent Rankings Compare Money flows Timeline Compare indicators Topics
Profiles
Company profiles Agency profiles Glossary Contact
EN▾
日本語 English
≈$3B Navy DEFINITIVE CONTRACT N0002498C2107

Two endings in one record: a carrier contract that began in 1998 and closed in 2005

Department of the Navy ・1998-02-06 〜 2005-03-25

A Navy contract signed in 1998 for about $3.00 billion. Its end date is 25 March 2005, the oldest ending among the Defense Department contracts on this site, and the legacy line kept in the description field carries a different pair of dates.

Contract key facts

  • RecipientHuntington Ingalls
  • Contract value$3,003,693,920 (≈$3B)
  • BranchNavy
  • Awarding agencyDepartment of Defense
  • Awarding sub-agencyDepartment of the Navy
  • Award typeDEFINITIVE CONTRACT
  • Period of performance1998-02-06 〜 2005-03-25
  • Contract ID (PIID)N0002498C2107

Contract scope (original)

199806!1700!2211!BZ002!NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002498C2107 !A!*!* !19980206!20030930!001307495!149899957!149899957!N!43689!NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND !4101 WASHINGTON AVE !NEWPORT NEWS !VA!23607!56000!700!51!NEWPORT NEWS !NEWPORT NEWS (CITY) !VIRGINIA !0001!+000017697599!N!N!000000000000!1901!AIRCRAFT CARRIERS !A3 !SHIPS !2SBP!CARRIER ACFT NUCLEAR-CVAN !3731!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!D !N!U!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!Z!* !* !N!C!*!B!B!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Key points

  • Signed by the Department of the Navy on 6 February 1998 for about $3.00 billion, with an end date of 25 March 2005.
  • It carries the oldest end date among the Defense Department contracts kept on this site.
  • The legacy line in the description field shows a different pair of dates, 19980206 and 20030930.
  • The outlay field is empty, so the record does not say how much was actually paid.

1Finished contracts are in the data too

Federal spending data is not a list of contracts still to come. Of the 208 Defense Department contracts this site holds as of 2026-09-05, 103 (49.5%) are already past their end date. This series works through eight of those records to ask what a finished contract tells you, and what it does not.

Defense Department contracts this site holds as of 2026-09-05208103 (49.5%) are past their end date
End date of this contract25 March 2005the oldest ending of the 208
Amount obligatedabout $3.00 billionthe outlay field is empty

2The same contract carries two pairs of dates

Two places in this record say when the work stopped. One is the end-date field returned by the API. The other is a legacy line preserved verbatim inside the description field.

Where you lookThe API fieldThe legacy line in the description
Start6 February 199819980206 (the same)
End25 March 200520030930
Forma formatted dateeight-digit numbers separated by exclamation marks
Intended readera persona machine

The start dates agree. Only the endings differ. Which one is the real ending is not written anywhere in the record. Contracts are extended and cut short all the time, so two dates surviving together is not strange in itself. What the record does not do is tell you which is which.

3What else the description field kept

The legacy line holds more than dates: the office that placed the order (Naval Sea Systems Command), where the work was done (Newport News, Virginia), and the product classification (aircraft carriers; carrier aircraft, nuclear-powered). It is not a sentence describing the work — it is a row of fields left where it fell.

The next article takes up a contract that ended twelve years ago and still reports zero outlays.

Why it matters

A closed contract is preserved in the shape it had when updates stopped. Anyone researching past procurement should treat the dates and amounts as values recorded at a moment, not as the current state of affairs.

FAQ

Are two end dates a data error?
Not necessarily. Contracts are extended and shortened, so dates recorded at different moments can sit in the same record. What this record does not do is say which date belongs to which moment.
Does an empty outlay field mean nothing was paid?
No. An empty field means the record does not carry that number. Older contracts are far less likely to have the field filled in, which is a separate matter from whether money moved.
Is there any point in looking at contracts that have ended?
Yes. What was obligated, which office placed the order and where the work was performed all help explain how procurement is shaped today.

Related profiles

Related explainers

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.

#Defense contracts#Department of the Navy#Contract closeout#Aircraft carriers#Reading the data

← Back to the defense ranking

Disclaimer: This site independently summarizes and classifies information based on official data sources. Always verify the latest and accurate information with the official sources. Content on finance, health, legal, and security is information, not advice. This site is not an official website of the U.S. government.