the 2021 federal scorecard

THE 2021 FEDERAL SCORECARD

ELEMENTS OF WARFARE

EDITION

FOREWORD

The Department of Defense (DoD) FY 2022 Budget Request aims to be a “strategy-based budget.” Aligning ends, ways, and means into a coherent strategy is always a challenge. As the FY 2022 budget reveals, this is especially hard when DoD expands its ends while flatlining its means.

The priorities of the emerging DoD strategy reflect much continuity from the 2018 National Defense Strategy: China remains the pacing threat and pursuing high-technology enhancements continues to be a top priority, as is maintaining readiness. Overall, the emerging strategy signals the future Joint Force will be smaller, more technologically advanced, and highly ready.

Secretary Austin has also outlined several important additional priorities as well: COVID-19, climate change, and eliminating extremism and sexual harassment from the military. Whilethis expanded list of DoD priorities is righteous, it will be hard to achieve as the Biden-Harris administration seeks a DoD FY 2022 topline that’s only 1.6% higher than FY 2021 and grows by 2.2% a year through FY 2026. These numbers are unlikely

to keep up with the pace of inflation, effectively cutting DoD’s buying power year over year. DoD has made numerous sensible choices in the FY 2022 budget, such as eliminating legacy systems of decreasing utility in a high-intensity warfight against a peer competitor. But these are just the first, and likely easiest, of a long list of hard choices to come. To determine whether the individual puts and takes in the budget make sense as a whole, it’s important to score the budget as a whole. Govini’s 2021 Federal Scorecard illustrates how Decision Science can enable DoD to do so.

The Scorecard features a DoD Elements of Warfare Taxonomy that orients DoD leadership to whether its budgetary decisions support its ultimate aims. DoD is investing more in RDT&E, but is it to upgrade its ability to conduct the current ways of warfare or to generate offsetting capabilities that will redefine the character of warfare? DoD seeks to reform and streamline its business operations, but are its efforts yielding savings in overhead that can be applied to warfighting capabilities? The 2021 Federal Scorecard provides a guide to answer these questions.

James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld Jr., 9th Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffRobert O. Work, 32nd Deputy Secretary of Defense

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page PageSection Section

6 54

11 58

15 60

19 62

23 64

34 70

28 68

40 72

Department of Defense Overview Defense Security Cooperation Agency

DoD Elements of Warfare Taxonomy Defense Information Systems Agency

Introduction Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Organize Missile Defense Agency

1 48

4 52

2 50

7 56

27 66

46 74

Navy National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Operate Department of Energy

Offset

Department of Justice

Outfit United States Special Operations Command

Overhead Homeland Security

Military Department Analysis

Interagency Analysis

Army Department of State

Air Force National Science Foundation

DoD Agency Analysis Guides and Vendor Index

Department of Defense Analysis Defense Threat Reduction Agency

1

INTRODUCTION

Tara Murphy Dougherty, CEO

DoD’s primary mission is to deter war by maintaining a credible ability to win it. However, DoD is not just a warfighting factory. It is a complex economy that pays for schools, commissaries, housing, and hospitals in addition to weapons, munitions, and sensors that form the nation’s military defense. With a $715 billion annual budget, if DoD were its own nation, it would be the world’s 20th largest economy.

Given its size and broad scope of investments, a perennial national security question is whether DoD is sufficiently investing in warfighting forces relative to overhead—those expenses not directly involved in warfighting. Historically, DoD aimed to maximize its investments in warfighting relative to overhead but in practice the opposite has often been true. Striking the right balance now is essential for DoD to maintain a military advantage relative to China—its “pacing threat.”

The fiscal headwinds confronting DoD coupled with a broadening set of priorities makes it increasingly challenging for DoD to optimize development of warfighting forces. To examine which way DoD’s investments are trending, Govini’s

2021 Federal Scorecard taxonomizes the entirety of DoD’s FY 2022 Budget Request into the core components that comprise the elements of warfare. The goal of this taxonomy is to provide an alternative view of DoD’s investments along critical axes not readily discernible within DoD’s budget data. It is a demonstration of how Govini’s decision science transfers data into decision advantage.

The 2021 Federal Scorecard begins with an assessment of the DoD as a whole and then dives into an examination of the Military Departments and DoD Agencies. Given the importance the Biden-Harris administration is placing on integrating DoD into a broader U.S. government foreign policy, the Scorecard also examines investment trends in key U.S. national security agencies.

At $715 billion in the FY 2022 request, the size and complexity of the DoD budget make it hard to determine whether the nation is making the right kinds of investments in its defense. Govini’s 2021 Federal Scorecard shows how decision science can distill a clear signal from the noise.

2

DOD ELEMENTS OF WARFARE TAXONOMY

Govini’s DoD Elements of Warfare Taxonomy organizes the DoD budget into five segments that describe its core defense activities: Organize; Outfit; Offset; Operate; and Overhead.

The pages that follow examine budget and contract data resident in Govini’s National Security Knowledge Graph (NSKG). The Govini NSKG applies machine learning techniques to data at scale to provide an integrated view of DoD investments and commercial market activity. The Scorecard assessment focuses on the DoD FY 2022 Budget Request as well as budget and contract trends over the past five years.

Topline totals by Service and Account are reconciled against the OSD Comptroller P1/R1/M1/O1/C1 appropriation summary information, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections and related DoD documents. As a result, certain summary totals will differ from reported “headline” totals as detailed in DoD, OSD, and Service budget overview documents.

The taxonomy is assigned at the individual Line of Accounting (LOA) or Program Element (PE) level, with every line consisting of a single set of taxonomy assignments. While this approach is largely applicable for traditional programs and platforms, it does conflict with certain multi-faceted LOAs/PEs where funding could logically receive multiple assignments.

OrganizeRecruiting, training, and maintaining the force that will be used in warfighting, including pay for U.S. military personnel, their education and training, equipment maintenance, and security assistance for allies and partners.

OutfitEquipping the force for war, including modernizing and upgrading those platforms, weapons, and sensors used to engage the adversary as well as enablers such as command and control, information, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare, and global and regional lift.

OffsetResearch & development and capabilities that can change the character of warfare, such as cyber and unmanned systems as well as emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

OperateMission operations as well as sustaining daily operations, including fuel and parts consumed as forces deploy and exercise.

Overhead Institutional support for the military that is not directly related to warfighting, such as management functions and infrastructure as well as health care and medical for personnel.

3

Defensive Protective Measures

Security Assistance

Defense Labs & University Research

Aircraft Operations

C4ISR & IT Systems

Infrastructure

Maintenance, Repair, & Overhaul

Biological

AI & ML

Hypersonics

Ground & Special Operations

Combat Platforms

Cargo & Handling

Pay & Incentives

C4ISR Advances

Directed Energy

Naval Operations

Missile Defense

Management

Test & Evaluation

Cyber

Other Emerging Tech

Nuclear Operations

Munitions

Medical

Training & Ranges Unmanned

Space Operations

Nuclear Weapons

Support Operations

Sensor Platforms

Support Platforms & Systems

OverheadOrganize Offset OperateOutfit

$3.3 B

$31.6 B

$5.2 B

$34.8 B

$639.4 M

$383.3 M

$8.0 B

$4.6 B

$55.3 B $39.0 B

$44.3 B

$55.2 B

$195.0 M

$650.6 M

$27.3 B

$3.2 B

$10.9 B

$161.5 B

$10.4 B $781.3 M

$9.0 B

$28.6 B

$143.7 M

$4.8 B

$17.1 B

$7.8 B

$2.7 B

$44.7 B

$1.6 B

$17.8 B

$4.3 B

$1.9 B5.8%

3.7%

0.9%

7.8%

9.8%

11.5%

14.0%

4.4%

5.9%8.3%

0.2%

6.4%

63.9%

36.7%

10.3%

4.4%

4.3%

2.7%

16.2% 11.2%

9.9%

3.5%

24.5%

4.1%

4.1%

0.6%

5.1%

8.6%

49.2%

6.0%

31.4%

12.5%

$135.1 B $87.8 B $233.7 B $157.1 B $24.1 B6.0%1.8%2.3% 4.5% 4.8%

DOD ELEMENTS OF WARFARE TAXONOMY, FY22

Subsegment $1.0 B100.0% % Change from FY21 Enacted

DoD FY 2022 Budget Request

+/-

Taxonomy Key

4

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERVIEW

The DoD Elements of Warfare Taxonomy highlights how DoD’s budgets are implementing its strategy. The 2018 National Defense Strategy calls for DoD to modernize and ready the force for great power war. Not surprisingly, from FY 2018 - FY 2021, the Trump administration’s defense budget increased the most in Offset (+18.2%) and Organize (+9.2%).

DoD’s FY 2022 Budget Request reveals an emerging Biden-Harris defense strategy that reflects continuity in these objectives but important differences in approach. Relative to FY 2021, the FY 2022 budget continues to increase Organize (+2.3%) where it largely sustains end-strength and invests further in training and maintaining the military. But the budget lowers funding in Outfit (-4.5%), Offset (-4.8%), and Operate (-1.8%).

The $7.3 billion drop in Outfit is a result of delayed modernization, such as reducing the F-35 buy, slowing shipbuilding, and providing fewer upgrades to legacy systems, as well as culling legacy systems with little bearing on a potential great power war. The same logic explains the drop in Offset—cuts to unmanned systems and those emerging technologies less relevant for operations in uncontested environments. The decrease in Operate reflects savings from troop withdrawals in Afghanistan and decreasing troop presence across the Middle East.

Surprisingly, the largest growth is in Overhead, which rose 6.0%. Driven by increases in Infrastructure & Environment and in Medical, these investments that lay the foundation for DoD to engage in war place greater pressure on funding to modernize and ready the force for war.

Examining the five-year trend shows just how hard it will be for DoD to find money to modernize the force and develop new capabilities. Although DoD is increasing its RDT&E budget, it is not yet scaling these technologies via procurement. DoD’s investments in Offset were just 3.2% of the FY 2018 DoD budget and despite being a priority its budget share only grew 0.2% by FY 2022. Meanwhile, Outfit’s share dropped 1.7% over the past five years. The only segment consistently adding budget share is Organize, which grew an additional 1.5% from FY 2018 - FY 2022 to claim nearly a third of the overall DoD budget. While Organize includes important investments for readiness, such as training and maintenance, the cost of military personnel is the predominant driver.

The result is an emerging DoD strategy that prioritizes the near term (0-2 years) by maintaining the current size of the military while investing in its readiness. At the same time, the strategy prioritizes the long-term (5+ years) by preferencing further research and development rather than procuring more modern Outfit systems or scaling existing Offset technologies.

5

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERVIEW

The implication is a strategy that accepts heightened risk in the mid-term (3-5 years) before new Offset technologies mature and effectively change the character of warfare to America’s advantage.

DoD’s effort to keep pace with a rising China requires a careful balance among the core elements of warfare across timeframes.

If left unchecked, Organize has the potential to undercut this balance. Examining DoD’s budget through the DoD Elements of Warfare Taxonomy orients DoD to these dynamics as it codifies its strategy for FY 2023.

800

600

400

200

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

$200B

$0B 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$400B

2018 2018

$600B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Perc

ent S

hare

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year

Year-Over-Year Budget FY18-26Year-Over-Year Percent of Budget

by Segment FY18-22

$800B

2019 20192020 20202021 20212022 20222023 2024 2025 2026

OffsetOverhead

OperateOrganize Outfit

ClassifiedProjected

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANALYSIS

6

7

ORGANIZETAXONOMY

Iraq Assistance

Aircraft Services

Housing Allowances Ranges

Specialized Training Systems

Multinational Programs

NavalServicesMilitary Pay Operational

TestingGeneral Training Services

Afghanistan Assistance

Ground Services

Other Allowances Systems NATO

Programs

Systems - SparesAdministration BMD Testing

Schoolhouse Training Services

Israeli BMD Programs

Test Equipment Systems

Social Security BMD RangesRanged Targets

Other (3) Other (24) Naval Live FireOther (3)

General Services

Reserve & Guard - Pays

Foreign System Testing

Individual Training Travel

Range Instrumentation

General Systems

Retirement Accrual BMD TargetsTraining

Systems

Security Assistance

Maintenance, Repair, & Overhaul

Test & Evaluation

Training & Ranges

$345.0 M

$12.8 B $23.0 B $803.9 M $4.7 B

$515.2 M $8.6 B $96.8 M $362.1 M

$1.0 B

$16.3 B $63.7 B $2.7 B $8.8 B

$9.0 B $22.2 B $553.3 M $1.6 B

$3.3 B

$1.9 B $9.4 B $176.6 M $364.2 M $33.2 M

$3.6 B $12.3 B $395.6 M $1.6 B

$500.0 M

$91.2 M $4.9 B $81.0 M $352.1 M

$30.2 M $18.9 B $54.8 M $117.3 M

32.4%

0.4%3.0% 1.3%1.0%

4.7%4.9% 0.6%14.4%

12.5%

3.9%2.3% 4.7%11.9%

8.7%2.9% 3.2%6.7%

9.2%

8.9%1.6% 20.5%18.8% 35.9%

12.3%6.3% 8.0%0.6%

0.0%

9.1%2.3% 17.5%9.7%

1.3%1.3% 13.7%24.7%

$5.2 B $44.3 B $4.8 B $17.8 B0.9%0.2% 4.1%6.0%


Pay & Incentives $162.8 B

2.7%



+/-

Taxonomy Key

8

Preparing

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

Allies & Partners Maintenance, Repair& Overhaul (MRO)

Pay & Incentives Test & Evaluation(T&E)

Training & Ranges

RDTE OM PROC REV MILPERS

Shipbuilding & Design

T&E

T&E: Foreign System…

Partner Assistance:…

MRO Systems - Test…

Personnel R&D

Partner Assistance:…

Education - Benets

Partner Assistance: Iraq

Training Systems -…

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

1276.58%

438.16%

300.11%

239.32%

68.29%

-38.19%

-44.96%

-49.39%

-72.81%

-87.71%

ORGANIZERANKINGS & ANALYTICS

Budget Account by Subsegment, FY22

Top Five Increase & Decrease by Capability, FY18-22

RDT&E REV

202020192018 20222021

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

ProcurementOM

$150B

$100B

$0B

Naval Live Fire

T&E Systems

Reserve & Guard TSP Matching

Active Duty TSP Matching

Foreign System Testing

Unit Training Travel

Multinational Programs

NATO Programs

Iraq Assistance

Threat Training Systems

$50B

1154% | $55 M

890% | $177 M

532% | $98 M

403% | $857 M

346% | $97 M

-35% | $36 M

-40% | $1 B

-44% | $33 M

-73% | $345 M

-88% | $18 M

0

$20 M

$40 M

$60 M

$80 M

$100 M

$120 M

$140 M

$160 M

$180 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Preparing line graph

$80B

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

$100B

$120B

$140B

$160B

$180B

Pay & Incentives

Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul

Training & RangesSecurity AssistanceTest & Evaluation

Security Assistance


Pay & Incentives Test & Evaluation

Training & Ranges

MILPERS

Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22

FY22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Subsegment

Fiscal Year

FY18-22 Percent Change | FY22 Dollars

Click Here to Reference the Department of Defense Guide

9


30%

20%

10%

$2B

0%

-10%

-20%

$0B $12B$6B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

21-2

2

FY22 Dollars (Billions)

-30%

$14B $18B $20B

Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22

$4B $8B $10B $16B $22B

Security Assistance

Pay & IncentivesTest & Evaluation


Training & Ranges

-40%

-50%

-60%

40%

$24B $26B $55B $60B $65B

Active Duty Military Pay

Housing Allowances

Retirement Accrual

Naval Services

Aircraft Services

Administration

General Systems

Other AllowancesReserve & Guard Pays

Social SecurityAfghanistan Assistance

Systems - Spares

Specialized Training Systems

Reserve & Guard TSP MatchingCivilian Personnel - Education

TSP Matching

Other Pays

Special PaysGround Services

Multinational ProgramsIraq AssistanceNATO Programs

Personnel R&DResearch Services

General Training Services

Threat Training Systems-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-2M 0 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 12M 14M 16M 18M 20M 22M

Organizing 6.18.21, colored, skewed


10


MILDEPRank RDT&EOperations & Maintenance Procurement

Navy

Army

Air Force

Navy

Navy

Army

Navy

Navy

Army

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Army

Air Force

Army

5.0%

8.9%

13.5%

15.6%

11.7%

3.3%

7.9%

61.5%

0.5%

4.0%

11.9%

4.0% 17.7%

15.4%

0.9%

3.1%

13.4%

10.8%

0.6%

0.7%

3.9%

48.3% 41.5%

19.6%

19.6%

15.1%

7.5%

38.1%

95.0%

6.7%

FY21FY21 FY22FY22 FY21 FY22

$3.5 B

$17.7 B

$5.0 B

$4.2 B $4.6 M

$114.8 M

$181.5 M

$1.1 B

$695.4 M

$4.7 B

$3.5 B

$18.4 B

$5.6 B

$4.4 B $3.8 M

$97.1 M

$179.8 M

$1.1 B

$602.2 M

$5.2 B

$1.4 B

$16.5 B

$3.1 B

$156.9 M $40.3 M

$260.8 M

$37.1 M

$13.6 M

$998.6 M

$295.6 M

$39.4 M

$1.3 B

$1.5 B

$16.7 B

$3.3 B

$81.1 M $23.6 M

$311.9 M

$44.4 M

$15.7 M

$923.2 M

$408.4 M

$76.9 M

$1.4 B

$2.1 B

$2.1 B

$2.6 B

$6.9 M

$91.0 M

$614.6 M

$332.8 M

$621.5 M

$2.3 B

$1.9 B

$3.0 B

$5.8 M

$80.4 M

$594.5 M

$359.2 M

$239.5 M

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

FY21FY22 % Change% Change% Change

Pay & Incentives


Training & Ranges

Security Assistance

Test & Evaluation


11

7

OUTFITTAXONOMY

Attack Submarines (SSN)

Naval Tactical Comms

Ground Tactical Comms

Air-to-SurfaceMissiles (ASM)

F/W ISR Platforms SLBMF/W Refueling BMD Sensor

Combat Fighters General IT

Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSM)

Missile Defense Satellites

ICBMR/W Multi-Mission Lift Interceptors

Combat Bombers

Artillery Ammunition

Space Launch

Hypersonic Defense

Carriers (CVN)

SONAR

Small Arms Ammunition

F/W C2 Platforms

R/W Maritime Lift

Integrated Air & Missile Defense

Destroyers (DDG)

Other (50)

Rockets R/W Maritime ISR

Soldier Systems

BMD Radar

Other (12) Other (37) Other (42)

Other (2)

Tracked Combat Vehicles

ISR Sensors

Torpedoes F/W Maritime ISR

SATCOM

Space Research

Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN)

Enterprise Comms

Medical IT

Bombs GPS Satellites

Weather Satellites

WarheadsAircraft Ground Support Equipment

Other Missile Defense

Combat Platforms

C4ISR & IT SystemsMunitions C4ISR

PlatformsNuclear Weapons


Missile Defense

$7.0 B $2.6 B $2.8 B $2.6 B $1.1 B $3.1 B $1.9 B

$3.5 B

$1.2 B

$603.2 M $462.8 M $1.6 B

$19.0 B $5.6 B $5.2 B $2.7 B $2.9 B $3.5 B $4.4 B

$5.4 B $2.3 B

$2.2 B

$1.3 B $961.6 M $298.6 M $2.1 B $1.8 B

$4.1 B

$1.3 B

$719.5 M $532.3 M $1.7 B $660.3 M

$5.0 B

$1.3 B

$1.1 B $565.2 M $1.8 B $1.6 B

$2.9 B

$18.3 B

$543.3 M $156.4 M $920.7 M

$48.8 M

$8.3 B $4.8 B $63.0 M $12.5 B

$160.3 M

1.6% 2.8%11.4% 1.9% 1.4%5.0% 17.8%

0.2%

14.7%

15.7% 75.7%41.6%

9.0% 8.6%15.1% 6.3% 69.5%26.9% 13.6%

12.0% 23.1%

6.9%

27.0% 4.7% 30.0%13.8% 5.9%

11.2%

19.8%

24.0% 20.1%6.6% 40.2%

18.8%

6.9%

5.2% 23.2%2.7% 12.9%

31.6%

12.5%

0.2% 28.2%10.5%

72.2%

20.5% 14.7% 26.7%13.6%

3.6%

$55.2 B $34.8 B $17.1 B $8.0 B $4.3 B $27.3 B $10.4 B6.2% 7.8%4.1% 14.0% 31.4%9.5% 16.2%




+/-

Taxonomy Key

12

OUTFITRANKINGS & ANALYTICS


202020192018 20222021

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22

Equipping(used to be warfighting) $60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0

C5ISR

Comba

t Plat

forms

Missile

Defe

nse

Munitio

ns

Nuclea

r Weap

ons

Sensor

Platfor

ms

Suppo

rt Plat

forms &

…

RDTE OM PROC

T&E: Test (BMD)


Ground Systems

Ammunition - Non-lethal

Aircraft Weapons

F/W Lift - Light Airlift

Small Arms - Machine…

Security Vehicles

Amphibious Ships

Counter-Rocket, Artille…

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4043.60%

3000.00%

2084.80%

1222.30%

845.90%

-94.70%

-96.00%

-96.90%

-97.60%

-99.40%

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B


Support Ground Systems

Non-lethal Ammunition

Aircraft Weapons

Frigate (FFG)

F/W Light Airlift

Machine Guns

Security Vehicles

Amphibious Ships

Counter-Rocket, Artillery & Mortar (C-RAM)

C4ISR &

IT Sy

stems

Combat Platf

orms

Missile

Defe

nse

Munitions

Nuclear

Wea

pons

C4ISR Platf

orms

0

$10 M

$20 M

$30 M

$40 M

$50 M

$60 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Warfighting line graph

$40B

$20B

$0B

$60B

$50B

$30B

$10B

CombatPlatforms

C4ISR & IT Systems

Support Platforms &Systems

Munitions

Missile DefenseC4ISR PlatformsNuclear Weapons

Support

Platform

s &

Syste

ms

3000% | $219 M

2085% | $91 M

1222% | $20 M

846% | $165 M

820% | $1.3 B

-95% | $30 M

-96% | $4 M

-97% | $2 M

-98% | $103 M

-99% | $127 K

FY22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Subsegment

Fiscal Year

Budget Account by Subsegment, FY22RDT&E ProcurementOM



13


Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22C4ISR & IT Systems Combat Platforms Missile Defense Munitions

Nuclear WeaponsC4ISR Platforms Support Platforms & Systems

600%

400%

300%

200%

100%

$1B

0%

-100%

-200%

$0B $4B$2B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

21-2

2


$5B $6B

500%

3000%

$3B $7B $8B

700%

3500%

$18B $20B

Replenishment Oilers

Combat FightersAttack Submarines (SSN)Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN)

Surface-to-Surface Missile (SSM)

Carriers (CVN)

Interceptors

F/W Refueling

Counter-UAS

Support Ships

Space ResearchShipbuilding & Design

Nuclear Weapons - ICBM

Tracked Combat Vehicles

Combat BombersR/W Multi-Mission Lift

Destroyers (DDG)F/W Support - Special Operations

F/W Maritime ISRF/W Itra-theater Airlift

BombsIT Networks & Systems

Outfit 6.18.21, colored, skewed

0 1M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7M 8M


14



Army

Air Force

Army

Air Force

Air Force

Navy

Navy

Navy

Navy

Army

Air Force

Army

Air Force

Army

Navy

7.5%

26.6%

17.3%

24.5%

13.0%

17.1%

25.6%

16.1%

22.4%

14.4%

6.4%

10.9%

13.6%

25.9%

9.2%

33.6%

20.4%

35.7%

1.7%

5.7%

6.3%

4.2%

8.7%

16.1%

27.8%

32.7%

1.1% 10.8%

30.9%

2.2%

14.3%

47.6%

19.0%

19.1%

26.4%

7.4%


$512.2 M

$3.9 B

$288.0 M

$2.7 B

$3.2 B

$2.9 B

$2.6 B

$2.2 B

$8.3 B

$3.9 B

$1.8 B

$5.7 B

$31.8 B

$9.6 B

$479.5 M

$3.5 B

$327.3 M

$3.3 B

$2.9 B

$3.9 B

$3.1 B

$1.4 B

$8.4 B

$3.7 B

$1.7 B

$5.9 B

$29.1 B

$8.1 B

$1.6 B

$43.3 M

$463.9 M $1.2 B

$4.6 B

$2.1 B

$6.8 B

$124.7 M

$8.0 B

$5.2 B

$574.0 M

$5.3 B$2.1 B

$29.1 M

$469.0 M $1.4 B

$3.1 B

$2.1 B

$7.7 B

$65.4 M

$6.5 B

$4.2 B

$725.4 M

$5.6 B

$29.3 M

$1.1 B

$1.7 B

$3.3 B

$1.6 B

$36.9 M

$2.3 B

$2.7 B

$1.3 B

$6.0 B

$31.5 M

$1.4 B

$2.0 B

$4.1 B

$1.4 B

$30.6 M

$1.7 B

$2.3 B

$1.6 B

$5.1 B3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2


Combat Platforms

C4ISR & IT Systems


Munitions

Missile Defense


15

OFFSETTAXONOMY

Ground R&D

RoboticsCOMSEC


Autonomous Architecture

AI & ML Biological

Refueling UAS

Anti-Tamper

HypersonicsC4ISR Advances

Directed Energy

Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV)

Other (14)

Micro-electronics

SensorsMulti-Mission UAS

Cyber Operations

Cyber

University Research

High Energy Laser

Manufacturing & Industrial Base

Other Emerging Tech

Comms. ISR UASAI & ML BiologicalCyber Defense/Cyber Security

Hypersonics R&D

Air-launched Hypersonics

Defense Labs & UARCs

General Directed Energy

Rapid Acquisition

Unmanned Undersea Vessel (UUV)

Unmanned

Trusted Electronics

$2.8 M

$3.6 B

$134.1 M

$68.8 M $229.5 M

$2.5 B

$587.8 M $214.5 M $1.2 B $639.4 M $195.0 M $6.0 B $489.7 M

$160.9 M

$1.3 B

$1.0 B

$193.5 M $168.8 M $457.1 M $723.0 M

$624.0 M

$952.1 M

$410.8 M $623.1 M

$912.5 M

$229.7 M $441.8 M

60.8%

18.7%

234.5%

8.8% 75.6%

26.2%

9.2% 22.3% 16.8%9.8% 63.9% 0.3% 26.8%

4.5%

668.7%

16.9% 7.5% 22.8%9.8%

25.5%

14.2%

107.6%1.9%

25.3%

18.0%4.4%

$9.0 B

$781.3 M $383.3 M $2.7 B $639.4 M $195.0 M $7.8 B $650.6 M

$1.9 B9.9%

11.2% 11.5% 5.1%9.8% 63.9% 0.6% 36.7%

12.5%

0.0%




+/-

Taxonomy Key

16

OFFSETRANKINGS & ANALYTICS

0

$2 M

$4 M

$6 M

$8 M

$10 M

$12 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Offsetting Line graph



RDT&E

202020192018 20222021

Dol

lars (

Billio

ns)

Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22Offsetting

$8 B

$6 B

$4 B

$2 B

0

AI & M

L

Biolog

ical

C5ISR A

dvan

cesCyb

er

Defense

Labs &

Univ

…

Directe

d Ene

rgy &

Hi…

Hypers

onics

Other E

merging

Tech

Unman

ned

RDTE OM PROC REV

Unmanned Surface…

R&D: Biological

R&D: Communications

R&D: Ground

Anti-Tamper

R&D: Analysis

Air-launched…

R&D: Modeling &…

R&D: Other S&T

R&D: SBIR/STTR

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

7500%

6614.90%

4651.80%

3542.80%

1201.50%

-65.30%

-68.60%

-85.40%

-87.30%

-99.80%

ProcurementOM

$8B

$6B

$4B

$0B


Biological

Communications R&D

Ground R&D

Anti-Tamper

Analysis R&D

Air-Launched Hypersonics

Modeling & Simulation

Other S&T

SBIR/STTR R&D

AI & M

L

Biological

C4ISR Adva

nces

Cyber

Defense

Labs &

Universi

ty Res

earch

Directe

d Energy

Hypers

onics

8637% | $229 M

6615% | $195 M

4652% | $588 M

3543% | $913 M

1202% | $69 M

-65% | $80 M

-69% | $161 M

-85% | $10 M

-87% | $297 M

-99% | $4 M

$8B

$6B

$4B

$0B

$10B

$12B

$2B

Other Emerging Tech

Cyber

UnmannedDefense Lab & University Research

Hypersonics

C4ISR Advances

Directed Energy

AI & ML

Biological

Other Emerg

ing Tec

h

Unmanned

REV

$2B

FY22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Subsegment

Fiscal Year



17


600%

200%

150%

100%

50%

$0.2B

0%

-50%

-100%

$0B $1.2B$0.6B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

21-2

2


$1.4B $1.8B $2B

Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22

250%

700%

2.6B$0.4B $0.8B $1B $1.6B $2.2B $2.4B $6B$5.5B

AI & ML Biological C4ISR Advances Total Cyber Defense Labs & University Research

Directed Energy Hypersonics Other Emerging Tech Unmanned

Cyber Defense / Cyber Security


Defense Labs & UARCsUAS ISR

Microelectronics

UAS Refueling

Unmanned Undersea Vessel (UUV)

Rapid AcquisitionCyber Operations

AI & ML

Ground R&DUniversity Research

Multi-Mission UASNaval R&D

SBIR/STTR R&D

Hypersonics

Anti-TamperHigh Energy Laser

UAS Planning

BiologicalUnmanned Surface Vessel (USV)

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2M 0.4M 0.6M 0.8M 1M 1.2M 1.4M 1.6M 1.8M 2M 2.2M 2.4M

Offset 6.18.21, colored, skewed


18



Navy

Navy

Air Force

Army

Air Force

Air Force

Navy

Navy

Air Force

Army

Army

Army

Air Force

1.8%

10.3%

37.7%

1.6%

22.6%

62.8%

14.6%

22.4%

9.9%

7.4%

33.4%

7.0%

10.1%

16.9%

50.0%

20.3%

35.4%

4.5%

23.9%

5.9%

6.4%

13.3%

30.5%

60.5%

15.0%

15.8%


$1.3 B

$650.2 M

$835.9 M

$633.7 M

$1.5 B

$232.9 M

$470.5 M

$54.9 M

$1.4 B

$1.5 B

$601.9 M

$1.1 B

$678.3 M

$1.3 B

$193.5 M

$705.7 M

$66.0 M

$1.9 B

$3.6 M

$1.0 B

$521.3 M

$229.2 M

$260.9 M

$2.7 B

$372.4 M

$206.9 M

$846.8 M$3.8 M

$1.3 B

$490.7 M

$243.9 M

$295.7 M

$1.9 B

$147.2 M

$176.0 M

$712.7 M

$785.7 M

$216.4 M

$270.2 M

$108.7 M

$1.1 B

$581.0 M

$216.8 M

$39.3 M

$799.9 M

$194.1 M

$168.3 M

$107.0 M

$877.4 M

$216.2 M

$185.1 M

$30.5 M3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2


Other Emerging Tech

Cyber

Unmanned


C4ISR Advances


19

OPERATETAXONOMY

Civil Military

Special Ops Naval

Information Operations

Army Ground Ops Air Force

Humanitarian

Other (5)

Counter- Intelligence

Combatant Commands

Nuclear Weapons Operations

Marine Corps Ground Ops

Army Counter-Narcotics

Logistics Ground Ops

Naval Operations

Naval Operations

Aircraft Operations

Space Operations

Space Operations

Support Operations

Nuclear Operations


$9.3 B

$15.0 M

$62.7 M

$10.9 B

$9.6 B

$23.5 B

$4.5 B

$18.9 B

$118.7 M

$1.6 B $2.3 B $143.7 M

$1.7 B

$1.1 B

$821.9 M $3.0 B

$137.3 M

0.9%

0.6%

21.1%

4.3%

8.3%

14.7%

16.8%

0.5%

28.6%

49.2% 3.0%24.5%

1.8%

0.0%

10.1%19.4%

51.2%

$10.9 B $143.7 M $31.6 B $39.0 B $1.6 B $4.6 B4.3% 24.5%3.7%8.3% 49.2% 4.3%




+/-

Taxonomy Key

20

OPERATERANKINGS & ANALYTICS



RDT&E REV

202020192018 20222021

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

OperatingNEW $40 B

$30 B

$20 B

$10 B

0

Aircraf

t Ope

ration

s

Ground

& Spe

cial O

p…

Naval

Operat

ions

Nuclea

r Ope

ration

s

Space

Operat

ions

Suppo

rt Ope

ration

s

RDTE OM PROC REV

Counter-narcotics

Nuclear Weapons -…

Space Operations

Counter-Intelligence

Personnel Recovery

Aircraft Operations - Air…

Ground Operations -…

Humanitarian Assistance

Ground Operations -…

Civil Military

0 100 200 300 400 500

500%

315.10%

216.20%

51.80%

39.30%

-7.30%

-7.40%

-13.30%

-20.30%

-37.10%

ProcurementOM

$40B

$30B

$20B

$0B

Counter-Narcotics

Nuclear Weapons Support

Space Operations


Personnel Recovery

Air Force Aircraft Operations



Army Ground Ops

Civil Military

0

$10 M

$20 M

$30 M

$40 M

$50 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Operating line graph


Aircraft Operations

Naval Operations

Support OperationsSpace OperationsNuclear Operations

$40B

$30B

$20B

$10B

$0B

$50B

$10B

Aircraft

Opera

tions

Ground & Sp

ecial

Operations

Naval

Operations

Nuclear

Operations

Spac

e Opera

tions

Support

Operations

1273% | $822 M

315% | $144 M

216% | $1.6 B

52% | $1.1 B

39% | $3 M

-7% | $19 B

-7% | $1.7 B

-13% | $119 M

-20% | $24 B

-37% | $137 M


FY22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Subsegment

Fiscal Year



21


60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-50%

$12B$10B$8B$6B$4B$2B

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-60%

$0B $18B$16B$14B $24B$22B$20B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

21-2

2


Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22Aircraft Operations Naval Operations

Space Operations


Nuclear Operations Support Operations

Army Ground Operations

Air Force Aircraft Operations

Naval Aircraft Operations

Naval Operations

Special Ops

Space Operations

Logistics Ground Ops

Army Aircraft Operations

Nuclear Weapons Support

Combatant Commands


Counter-Narcotics

Military Deception



Civil Military

0 2M 4M 6M 8M10M

12M14M

16M18M

20M22M

24M

Operating 6.18.21, colored no y


22



Air Force

Army

Navy

Army

Air Force

Navy

Air Force

Air Force

Navy

Navy

Army

28.8%

19.4%

2.0% 16.2% 3.1%

13.9%

0.5%

4.3%

3.25%

50.0%

52.3%

66.1%

51.0%

2.1%

8.3%

2.4% 36.0% 29.9%


$29.1 B

$19.0 B

$10.4 B

$1.3 B

$966.3 M

$11.6 M

$56.3 M

$8.1 M

$25.1 B

$18.9 B

$10.9 B

$1.3 B

$1.4 B

$5.5 M

$93.5 M

$12.2 M

$3.2 B

$8.9 B

$920.6 M $21.9 M $61.2 M

$3.2 B

$9.6 B

$942.5 M $14.0 M $42.9 M

$824.9 M

$2.5 B

$8.8 M $40.6 M $2.6 M

$1.1 B

$3.0 B

$9.0 M $47.2 M $2.5 M

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2



Aircraft Operations

Naval Operations

Support Operations

Space Operations


23

OVERHEADTAXONOMY

7

Medical Systems

Facilities Maintenance

Chemical DemilitarizationAdministration

Ground Logistics - Transportation

Health Care Contribution

Facilities Operations

Chem-Bio Defense

Backoffice Defense Agencies

Medical/ Dental

Facilities Environmental

Radiation Monitoring

Legal & Inspector General

Aircraft Logistics

HQ Construction

Acquisition & Program Management

Medical R&D

Quarters/Barracks/ Dining

Naval Logistics - Systems

Other (26)

Other (13) Planning/Design

Nuclear Defense

Ground Logistics

CWMDHeadquarters

Ground Logistics - Systems

MedicalInfrastructureDefensive Protective Measures

Management Cargo & Handling

$16.0 M

$15.0 B $1.1 B $8.6 B

$1.0 B

$1.0 B

$9.6 M

$185.3 M

$9.3 B

$29.4 B $1.5 B $13.1 B

$2.0 B $666.7 M $4.2 B

$775.3 M

$32.4 B

$1.2 B

$9.8 M

$632.9 M

$195.9 M

$1.7 B $2.0 B

$3.0 B

$495.2 M

$174.7 M

$4.4 B

$837.8 M

18.5%

7.3% 4.2%4.8%

25.1%

15.2%

89.4%

88.5%

11.5%

5.5% 5.1%1.6%

90.5% 9.7%4.3%

2.5%

10.4%

30.1%

11.5%

6.7%

5.1%

32.4% 7.3%

13.2%

52.4%

787.1%

13.0%

5.4%

$44.7 B $55.3 B $3.3 B $28.6 B $3.2 B8.6%5.9% 5.8%3.5% 4.4%


Airfield FacilitiesConstruction



+/-

Taxonomy Key

24

OVERHEADRANKINGS & ANALYTICS




Infrastructure Cargo & Handling

Management$40B

$30B

$20B

$10B

$0B

RDT&E REV MILCON

0

$10 M

$20 M

$30 M

$40 M

$50 M

$60 M

$70 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Supporting line graph

202020192018 20222021

Infrastructure

Medical

Management

Cargo & Handling


$50B

$60B

$70B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


SupportingNEW $60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0

CBRNE Infrastructure &Environment

Logistics Management Medical

RDTE OM PROC REV MILCON MERHFC

Ground Logistics -…

Facilities Constructio…


Bridging

Facilities Operations -…

Naval Logistics

Cargo Vehicles



Financial Management

0 400 800 1200 1600

1500

999.70%

193.70%

91.50%

84.20%

-76.80%

-76.90%

-79.90%

-87.10%

-97.00%

Procurement MERHFCOM

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

Ground Logistics - Material Handling

Naval Shore Facilities Construction


Facilities Operations - Utilities

Ground Logistics - POL & Water

Naval Logistics

Cargo Vehicles

Range Facilities Construction

Facilities Construction Safety & Security


Medical

2087% | $16 M

1000% | $477 M

194% | $775 M

84% | $331 M

72.7% | $92 M

-77% | $1 M

-77% | $22 M

-80% | $34 M

-87% | $44 M

-97% | $19 M

FY22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Subsegment

Fiscal Year



25


$6B$4B$2B$0B $14B$12B$10B$8B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

21-2

2


800%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

100%

120%

140%

700%

Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22Defensive Protective Measures Medical ManagementInfrastructure Cargo & Handling

$30B$25B $35B


Facilities Construction Safety & Security

Ground Logistics

HeadquartersAcquisition & Program Management

Planning/Design

Medical R&DChem-Bio Defense

Naval Logistics

Facilities EnvironmentalHousing Construction

Administration

Health Care ContributionFacilities Maintenance

Backoffice Defense Agencies

Facilities OperationsMedical/Dental

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

Airfield Construction

Maintenance Facilities Construction

HQ Construction

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 12M 14M

Rec

essi

on

vel

oci

ty (k

m/s

)

Distance from Earth (million light-years)

Overhead 6.18.21, colored, skewed


26



Navy

Air Force

Navy

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Army

Air Force

Army

Navy

Army

Navy

Army

Navy

Army

0.9%

3.0%

399.0%

3.2%

21.2%

5.2% 4.9%

2.0%

8.8%

19.7%

3.9%

63.2%

9.6%

17.9%

0.2%

76.8%

0.7%

4.8%

1.3%

44.7%

68.9%

6.1%

38.0%

11.0%

31.3%

1.8%

8.3%

90.0%

38.9%

53.5%

9.8%

9.4%

25.3%

26.4%


$14.8 B

$2.5 B

$331.2 M

$4.7 M

$1.9 B

$327.2 M

$100.7 M

$112.6 M

$8.2 M

$1.1 B

$786.5 M

$95.4 M

$36.3 M$16.1 B

$1.1 B

$3.0 B

$318.3 M

$7.6 M

$2.1 B

$268.5 M

$100.8 M

$199.2 M

$8.3 M

$1.1 B

$796.7 M

$138.1 M

$11.3 M

$15.4 B

$315.2 M

$2.9 B

$1.0 B

$775.0 K

$152.1 M

$39.6 M

$22.9 M

$80.4 M

$13.4 M

$635.3 M

$20.7 M

$47.5 M$16.4 B

$434.8 M

$3.2 B

$708.0 M

$761.0 K

$164.6 M

$4.0 M

$14.0 M

$123.4 M

$12.1 M

$575.8 M

$15.5 M

$60.1 M

$12.3 B

$2.4 B

$395.0 K

$159.9 M

$83.9 M

$38.1 M $69.2 M

$111.8 M$12.2 B

$2.4 B

$2.0 M

$165.1 M

$66.1 M

$40.1 M $72.6 M

$114.0 M3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2


Infrastructure

Medical

Management


Cargo & Handling


MILITARY DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

27

28

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYDECISION SCIENCE INSIGHTS

The Department of the Army requests $172.7 billion for FY 2022, a 2.2% decrease from the FY 2021 enacted budget. With this budget request, the Army seeks “to compete, deter, and defeat the nation’s adversaries” by simultaneously preserving readiness and pursuing an ambitious modernization program.

Despite the decrease in topline, the Army is not really much of a bill-payer for the rest of the joint force. A $3.3 billion (-10.0%) reduction in Operate, driven by lower direct war costs as the tempo of Operation Freedom Sentinel and Operation Inherent Resolve slows, accounts for nearly 90% of the $3.8 billion decrease in topline. Outside of the wars in Central Command, the Army’s budget request remains essentially flat.

The Army request maintains funding levels for readiness and protects force structure, with personnel reductions of only 900 soldiers in the active component and 1,700 soldiers in the total force. At the same time, increases in military pay & housing, management overhead, and medical costs mean that the same size force is more expensive to oversee and organize, which is reflected by increases of $2.2 billion (7.9%) and $600 million (0.8%) in Overhead and Organize, respectively.

Although Army budget documents emphasize the importance of modernization, both Outfit and Offset get squeezed as a result of the increase in Overhead and Organize, with decreases of $2.4 billion (-7.5%) and $1.0 billion (-16.1%), respectively. As a result, the budget request takes risk in near-term modernization in order to pursue the next generation of capabilities. It protects the 31 signature programs that make up its six modernization priorities at the expense of procurement of upgrades and replacements of legacy systems.

The Army is likely to face continued downward pressure on its topline. With personnel and overhead costs likely to continue to rise, a critical question is whether the Army can execute its modernization program and maintain combat readiness without more drastic reductions to its force structure.

29

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYBUDGET OVERVIEW

YoY Investment by Budget Account, FY18-22

Aircraft Systems -Propulsion

R&D: RapidAcquisition

R&D: Biological

R&D: Ground

R&D: Software

Radar - Counterfire

FinancialManagement

Small Arms -Machine Guns

Targeting Systems

Counter-Rocket,Artillery & Mort…

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000

3000

2871.9%

2469.0%

2099.8%

-92.6%

-95.6%

-96.0%

-96.5%

-99.4%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

RDTE OM PROC REV MILPERS MILCONMERHFC

0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

$80 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Offset Operate Organize Overhead Outfit

MILDEP Army

$150B

$100B

$50B

$0B

$200B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

RDT&E REVProcurementOM MILPERS MILCON MERHFC

Aircraft Systems -Propulsion


R&D: Biological

R&D: Ground

R&D: Software

Radar - Counterfire

FinancialManagement

Small Arms -Machine Guns

Targeting Systems

Counter-Rocket,Artillery & Mort…

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000

3000

2871.9%

2469.0%

2099.8%

-92.6%

-95.6%

-96.0%

-96.5%

-99.4%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

OM RDTE PROC MILPERS MILCON MERHFCREV

0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

$80 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Army

$80B

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

202020192018 20222021

YoY Investment by Segment, FY18-22Offset OverheadOperateOrganize Outfit


Aircraft Propulsion Systems

Rapid Acquisition

Biological

Ground R&D

Software R&D

Counterfire Radar


Machine Guns

Targeting Systems

Counter-Rocket, Artillery & Mortar (C-RAM)

197,854% | $232 M

16,688% | $141 M

2,872% | $11 M

2,469% | $924 M

2,100% | $310 M

-93% | $32 M

-96% | $19 M

-96% | $4 M

-97% | $3 M

-99% | $127 K

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)D

olla

rs (B

illio

ns)

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year


Click Here to Reference the Military Departments Guide

30

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYBUDGET PRIORITIES

Segment Requested Total % ChangeRank % Segment Total

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

$63.6 B $62.7 B

$18.2 B $17.5 B

$25.4 B $29.1 B

$9.8 B $9.0 B

$2.6 B $3.7 B

$6.1 B $6.0 B

$5.4 B $3.9 B

$3.0 B $2.5 B

$6.5 B $7.6 B

$1.7 B $1.5 B

$4.4 B $4.2 B

$3.4 B $3.0 B

$1.0 B $1.0 B

$6.0 B $6.9 B

$391.1 M $601.6 M

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

81.8%

64.1%

89.2%

28.3%

61.5%

7.8%

14.4%

7.7%

23.8%

24.8%

5.5%

11.1%

3.1%

21.6%

10.0%

82.4%

61.6%

86.4%

33.3%

51.8%

7.9%

18.3%

10.3%

22.1%

34.5%

5.7%

11.4%

3.4%

20.5%

7.7%

Enacted Total

FY21 FY21 FY21FY22 FY22 FY22 % Point Change

Organize

Overhead

Operate

Outfit

Offset

Top Subsegments

Pay & Incentives

Infrastructure


C4ISR & IT Systems

Other Emerging Tech

Training & Ranges

Medical

Aircraft Operations

Combat Platforms

Cyber

Security Assistance

Management

Support Operations

Munitions

Unmanned

1.5%

3.6%

12.8%

8.8%

29.3%

16.7%

35.0%

1.6%

37.4%

19.4%

14.1%

3.9%

10.8%

0.4%

12.5%

0.6%

2.5%

2.8%

5.0%

9.7%

0.1%

3.9%

2.5%

1.7%

9.7%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

1.2%

2.2%


31

MILDEP Army

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40

$100 B

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

Supporting Equipping Organizing Offseting Operating

MILDEP Army

Supporting Equipping

Offseting

Organizing

Operating -100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40

Overhead$262.6 B

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYCONTRACTING OVERVIEW

$100 B

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0


Organizing Equipping Offseting Operating Supporting

MILDEP Army


Offseting

Organizing

Operating -100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

$80B

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Contracts Momentum by Subsegment, FY16-20

$100B

Outfit$100.4 B

Organize$68.9 B

Offset$23.1 B

Operate$10.2 B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

300%

50%

-50%

$10B

100%

0%

-100%$0B $20B $30B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

16-F

Y20

FY20 Dollars (Billions)$40B

250%

200%

150%

Fiscal Year

Medical

Infrastructure

Combat Platforms

Munitions

Training & Ranges


Pay & Incentives

Management


Test & Evaluation

Health

Unmanned


Cargo & Handling

C4ISR & IT Systems

Support Operations

Other Emerging Tech

Segment by Total Obligation, FY16-20Offset OffsetOverhead OverheadOperate OperateOrganize OrganizeOutfit Outfit


32

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYCONTRACTING PRIORITIES

Segment # of Congressional Districts

Top Congressional District by POP

AZ-3, VA-11

TX-33, AZ-3

AZ-5, MA-6

AL-5, VA-11

AL-5, MD-2

MI-9, PA-10

OR-5, AL-2

CA-52, AZ-2

CO-5, VA-9

TX-18, TX-12

CT-3, TX-6

OH-2, KS-4

IN-5

63.5%

54.7%

82.3%

83.3%

21.8%

24.6%

11.8%

16.7%

100.0%

13.3%

10.7%

4.6%

0.0%

11402

417

4269

1429

4324

50

1173

24

3113

3983

34

661

2

10803

413

3993

1441

3705

55

1185

25

1080

1795

34

616

1

428

242

420

327

408

48

292

28

403

420

35

292

2

427

252

418

317

405

51

301

26

297

396

36

282

1

% of Segment Total # of Vendors

Overhead

Outfit

Organize

Offset

Operate

2019

$36.1 B

$12.7 B

$11.0 B

$4.3 B

$12.4 B

$5.7 B

$1.6 B

$857.3 M

$5.4 B

$7.6 B

$2.5 B

$611.5 M

$2.2 M

$40.3 B

$13.3 B

$11.2 B

$4.1 B

$12.5 B

$4.8 B

$2.3 B

$324.6 M

$1.4 B

$6.9 B

$2.4 B

$559.4 M

$0.0 M

11.6%

5.3%

1.1%

3.9%

0.7%

15.2%

45.8%

62.1%

73.8%

9.0%

1.1%

8.5%

100.0%

Total Obligated AmountSubsegment

Infrastructure

Munitions

Other Emerging Tech

Management

Combat Platforms

Training & Ranges


Unmanned

Support Operations

Cargo & Handling


Pay & Incentives

Directed Energy

2020 % Change

64.3%

58.5%

78.1%

92.7%

19.9%

21.2%

16.1%

7.3%

100.0%

11.0%

10.7%

3.9%

0.0%

2020 2020 20202019

Rank

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

2021 2020 2019 2019


33

VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY19

FY19

94.5%

47.7%

13.8%

9.2%

58.7%

57.9%

5.7%

26.4%

77.7%

0.0%

80.0%

97.8%

79.8%

54.7%

94.7%

44.7%

95.1%

96.7%

63.6%

59.6%

63.2%

51.4%

82.7%

100.0%

80.3%

96.5%

88.5%

76.4%

5.3%

54.5%

4.9%

3.1%

35.1%

40.4%

32.9%

47.5%

17.6%

0.0%

14.5%

3.5%

11.5%

23.1%

FY20

FY20

94.6%

61.0%

28.0%

6.9%

56.0%

52.7%

2.4%

18.3%

84.3%

0.0%

80.7%

96.6%

74.7%

60.3%

FY19

FY19

682

360

189

31328

966

263

105

2974

989

1

5032

404

580

2636

FY20

FY20

662

315

185

29122

991

246

88

2811

963

3

5093

361

569

2705

$4.0 B

$2.0 B

$22.2 B

$2.4 B

$1.3 B

$8.6 B

$4.2 B

$2.6 B

$1.8 B

$9.0 B

$11.4 B

$2.6 B

$1.9 B

$15.3 B

1

4

2

1

3

3

9

5

10

12

7

2

4

Lockheed Martin Corp.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Oshkosh Corp.

U.S. Department of the Army

General Dynamics Corp.

BAE Systems Holdings Inc.

Amentum Government Services Holdings LLC

0630 AQ TM CONTRACTING TEA - APO

Raytheon Technologies Corp.

Fisher Sand & Gravel Co.

ACC-RSA Redstone Arsenal, AL

Boeing Co.

L3Harris Technologies Inc.

0636 AQ TM CONTRACTING TEA - APO

Contracting Offices

1.9

0.2

0.7

3.6

0.3

0.5

0.1

0.4

0.6

1.9

2.7

0.4

0.0

1.3

% Point Change Share Obligation


2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020

Total Contract Obligations


Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost- Plus

% Cost- Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYTOP VENDORS & CONTRACTING OFFICES


34

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYDECISION SCIENCE INSIGHTS

The Department of the Navy requests $211.7 billion in FY 2022, a 1.8% increase from the FY 2021 enacted budget. The Department of the Navy considers the 2020s as the “critical ‘decade of concern’ to shape the balance of maritime power in this century”. Yet, like the DoD’s budget as a whole, its budget focuses more on the readiness of its current force and development of its far-future force than scaling existing capabilities to manage risk better in the middle of the decade.

Outfit is the bill-payer within the budget as it drops $2.5 billion (-3.5%) relative to FY 2021 with reductions in shipbuilding and divestments of Marine Corps ground systems. All other accounts rise more than 3%; Classified reaches 11.4% annual growth.

Offset increases 3.2% to $4.5 billion in FY 2022. But this is down 24% from Navy’s FY 2019 budget, where Offset peaked at $5.9 billion, as investments in Other Emerging Technologies and Unmanned systems have declined substantially in the past two years.

Overhead grows 4.3% in FY 2022 but overall accounts for only 10.9% of Navy’s budget, a smaller share of the budget than Air Force (12.5%) or Army (17.1%).

Operate increases 5.6% consistent with annual growth over the past five years. Organize also continues its steady, annual climb and now amounts to $86.4 billion (+4.1%). Maintenance, Repair, & Overhaul drives this segment by rising 5.4%. Coupled together, these shifts suggest the Navy will continue a high tempo pace of ship deployments and aim to achieve sufficient fleet readiness by added investment in maintenance rather than decreased operations.

35

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBUDGET OVERVIEW

Unmanned SurfaceVessel (USV)

MRO Systems

Shipbuilding &Design

FacilitiesConstruction - Na…

Logistics IT


F/W Lift - LightAirlift

Amphibious Ships

Acquisition &Program…

Ammunition -Mortars

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4000

4000

2999.96%

2107.47%

2101.96%

-88.81%

-94.28%

-97.56%

-97.84%

-99.84%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

$80 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Navy

$150B

$100B

$50B

$0B

$200B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Unmanned SurfaceVessel (USV)

MRO Systems

Shipbuilding &Design

FacilitiesConstruction - Na…

Logistics IT



Amphibious Ships

Acquisition &Program…

Ammunition -Mortars

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4000

4000

2999.96%

2107.47%

2101.96%

-88.81%

-94.28%

-97.56%

-97.84%

-99.84%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

$80 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Navy

$80B

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

202020192018 20222021


MRO Systems


Naval Shore Facilities Construction

Logistics IT

Rapid Acquisition

F/W Light Airlift

Amphibious Ships

Acquisition & Program Management

Mortars

8,637% | $230 M

6,654% | $2.1 B

3,000% | $219 M

2,108% | $420 M

2,102% | $44 M

-89% | $7 M

-94% | $14 M

-98% | $103 M

-98% | $3 M

-99% | $32 K

Top Five Increase & Decrease by Capability, FY18-22 D

olla

rs (B

illio

ns)

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year






36

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBUDGET PRIORITIES

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

$55.2 B $53.5 B

$32.6 B $34.9 B

$10.9 B $10.4 B

$15.3 B $15.1 B

$1.8 B $1.3 B

$23.8 B $22.6 B

$13.3 B $12.5 B

$9.6 B $8.9 B

$3.6 B $3.2 B

$1.1 B $1.1 B

$6.8 B $6.3 B

$11.6 B $11.7 B

$3.2 B $3.2 B

$2.6 B $2.5 B

$907.9 M $1.2 B

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

64.5%

48.9%

46.3%

68.5%

29.9%

27.2%

17.6%

39.5%

14.4%

25.4%

7.6%

16.4%

14.0%

11.5%

26.8%

63.9%

47.4%

45.7%

66.7%

40.4%

27.5%

19.3%

40.5%

15.6%

24.2%

7.9%

16.8%

13.5%

11.3%

20.2%

FY21 FY21 FY21FY22 FY22 FY22

Organize

Outfit

Operate

Overhead

Offset

Pay & Incentives

Combat Platforms

Naval Operations

Infrastructure

Unmanned


C4ISR & IT Systems

Aircraft Operations

Medical

Cyber

Training & Ranges



Management

Other Emerging Tech

3.0%

6.5%

4.3%

1.6%

39.4%

1.7%

22.6%

5.4%

6.2%

8.3%

12.6%

8.9%

1.0%

2.1%

3.0%

0.6%

1.5%

0.6%

1.8%

10.5%

0.3%

1.8%

1.0%

1.1%

1.2%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.1%

6.7%

% Point Change

Segment Requested Total % ChangeRank % Segment TotalEnacted

TotalTop Subsegments


37

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0



MILDEP Navy

Equipping Supporting

Offseting

Organizing

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30 40

Outfit$300.2 B

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYCONTRACTING OVERVIEW

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0



MILDEP Navy

Equipping Supporting

Offseting

Organizing

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30 40

$50B

$0B

$100B

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$150B

Overhead$158.5 B

Organize$111.2 B

Offset$37.0 B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

$10B$0B $20B $30B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

16-F

Y20

FY20 Dollars (Billions)$40B-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30 40

MILDEP Navy

50%

-50%

100%

0%

250%

200%

150%

Health

Test & Evaluation

Combat Platforms


Infrastructure

Maintenance, Repair & OverhaulManagement

Munitions

Other Emerging Tech

Medical

Defensive Protective MeasuresSupport Operations

Unmanned

Training & Ranges

Pay & Incentives

Cargo & Handling

C4ISR & IT Systems

Fiscal Year

Segment by Total Obligation, FY16-20Offset OverheadOperateOrganize Outfit

Contracts Momentum by Subsegment, FY16-20Offset OverheadOperateOrganize Outfit


38

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYCONTRACTING PRIORITIES



TX-12, WA-9

NC-3, CA-52

CT-1, MA-6

TX-12, MD-3

CT-2, MS-4

MD-5, CA-52

VA-1, CA-52

CA-52, WA-3

NC-3, IL-10

MO-1, AZ-3

VA-3, FL-5

MA-6, CA-46

CA-26

40.8%

60.7%

94.8%

95.1%

32.5%

29.0%

2.9%

4.9%

100.0%

16.0%

8.6%

1.4%

0.0%

46

6924

5121

1499

88

4280

1309

17

1740

374

2966

266

1

48

6269

4728

1834

109

3022

1203

25

689

380

1550

251

1

65

417

418

307

73

394

324

20

350

233

403

134

1

65

423

416

320

80

374

317

26

228

232

364

122

1


2019

$23.7 B

$20.5 B

$25.5 B

$7.8 B

$18.9 B

$9.8 B

$769.8 M

$399.2 M

$1.1 B

$9.3 B

$2.9 B

$368.1 M

$0.1 M

$41.4 B

$25.1 B

$22.0 B

$7.8 B

$28.0 B

$10.7 B

$900.2 M

$608.3 M

$1.0 B

$10.0 B

$3.0 B

$291.8 M

$0.0 M

74.9%

22.6%

13.6%

0.4%

48.2%

9.6%

16.9%

52.4%

10.8%

7.2%

2.7%

20.7%

100.0%



Infrastructure


Other Emerging Tech

Combat Platforms

Management

Training & Ranges

Unmanned

Support Operations

Munitions

Cargo & Handling

Test & Evaluation

Directed Energy

2020 % Change

48.5%

64.3%

94.0%

92.8%

32.8%

27.4%

3.8%

7.2%

100.0%

11.7%

7.7%

1.2%

0.0%

2020 2020 20202019

Rank

2021 2020 2019 2019

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

Outfit

Overhead

Organize

Offset

Operate


39

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYTOP VENDORS & CONTRACTING OFFICES

VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY19

FY19

85.5%

92.8%

100.0%

56.8%

57.9%

75.8%

1.4%

24.2%

92.0%

40.1%

94.6%

88.5%

96.6%

13.4%

76.8%

88.1%

69.4%

32.6%

21.9%

52.8%

1.6%

48.9%

68.3%

76.8%

91.3%

100.0%

94.4%

97.4%

23.2%

11.7%

30.6%

67.4%

78.1%

47.0%

98.4%

51.1%

31.7%

23.2%

8.7%

0.0%

5.6%

2.6%

FY20

FY20

92.9%

92.1%

100.0%

61.5%

74.8%

50.0%

1.6%

27.2%

87.3%

32.0%

96.6%

87.1%

98.6%

13.1%

FY19

FY19

2753

2414

520

2769

1614

525

35

16546

3096

1162

1990

2021

798

4559

FY20

FY20

2375

2051

479

2487

1433

386

15

20132

2699

1038

1967

1812

758

4210

$10.3 B

$2.9 B

$56.9 B

$4.3 B

$1.4 B

$4.0 B

$16.6 B

$7.7 B

$1.7 B

$8.2 B

$42.3 B

$9.6 B

$1.9 B

$37.8 B

1

4

2

1

3

3

5

6

11

9

10

2

7

7


Boeing Co.

Bell Boeing Joint Project Office

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)


Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

Fluor Corp.

US Department of the Navy



Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)


General Electric Company

NAVFAC Atlantic - Mid-Atlantic

Contracting Offices

10.0

1.0

0.0

1.5

2.1

0.1

0.2

1.2

3.2

0.3

5.5

1.6

0.6

0.6



2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost- Plus

% Cost- Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source


40

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEDECISION SCIENCE INSIGHTS

The Department of the Air Force seeks $173.7 billion in FY 2022, a 3.3% increase from FY 2021, to provide Combatant Commanders the ready forces they need today while also modernizing the Air Force and Space Force for high-intensity warfare against China and Russia.

In addition to the topline increase, the Air Force generates savings by slowing the pace of F-35 procurement and retiring over 200 legacy aircraft from the fleet. Outfit, therefore, drops by $1.2 billion (-2.8%) relative to FY 2021. Surprisingly, despite the Air Force’s call to invest in leading-edge innovation for the future fight, these added funds are not reinvested into Offset but to Overhead. Offset grows a modest $0.1B (1.4%) in FY 2022 and Overhead adds $3.3 billion (14.4%).

The minimal added funding for Offset in FY 2022 may be partially explained by the fact that, at $7.4 billion, the Air Force already invests 31% and 39% more in this segment than the Army or Navy, respectively. However, the 21% drop in Air Force AI & ML funding is out of step with DoD’s general approach to treat this technology as the one with the greatest game-changing potential.

The jump in Overhead is driven by Infrastructure and Management costs for facilities and base operation support. In particular, the Air Force is modernizing infrastructure for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and newly developed B-21 bomber. Moreover, this added funding is largely a correction to a dip in Infrastructure and Management spending in FY 2021.

Operate grows 3.3%, in-line with the topline request, suggesting little change to the pace of Air Force deployments. Similarly, Organize rises 3.5% and includes important additions to Training Services (+11%) and Training Ranges (+27.2%) that demonstrate DoD’s commitment to investing in its workforce.

41

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEBUDGET OVERVIEW

FacilitiesEnvironmental

PNT Systems

C2 - Ground

R&D:Manufacturing…

Electronic Attack(EA)

Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles


Security Vehicles

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000%

2779.04%

870.83%

841.31%

645.56%

-86.65%

-95.31%

-96.82%

-97.05%

-99.05%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Air Force

$150B

$100B

$50B

$0B

$200B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


PNT Systems

C2 - Ground



Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles


Security Vehicles

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000%

2779.04%

870.83%

841.31%

645.56%

-86.65%

-95.31%

-96.82%

-97.05%

-99.05%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Air Force

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

202020192018 20222021


PNT Systems

Ground C2


Electronic Attack (EA)

Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles

F/W Light Airlift

Security Vehicles

15,088,300% | $302 M

2,779% | $207 M

871% | $62 M

841% | $1.1 B

646% | $37 M

-87% | $37 M

-95% | $3 M

-97% | $1 M

-97% | $8 M

-99% | $488 K

Top Five Increase & Decrease by Capability, FY18-22 D

olla

rs (B

illio

ns)

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year






42

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEBUDGET PRIORITIES

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

2

3

$42.5 B $40.8 B

$15.8 B $16.4 B

$19.1 B $16.7 B

$18.9 B $19.0 B

$3.2 B $2.9 B

$18.1 B $17.9 B

$9.6 B $12.6 B

$5.1 B $4.4 B

$1.5 B $1.0 B

$2.2 B $2.0 B

$4.6 B $4.3 B

$5.8 B $4.7 B

$2.3 B $2.1 B

$1.4 B $1.3 B

$599.2 M $386.2 M

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

63.4%

36.7%

71.5%

85.3%

39.3%

27.9%

28.2%

18.8%

4.6%

27.8%

6.7%

10.4%

8.8%

5.9%

5.3%

63.9%

36.4%

71.7%

82.2%

43.4%

27.2%

22.2%

18.9%

6.7%

30.0%

7.0%

13.3%

8.7%

5.9%

8.1%

FY21 FY21 FY21FY22 FY22 FY22

Organize

Outfit

Overhead

Operate

Offset

Pay & Incentives

Combat Platforms

Infrastructure

Aircraft Operations

Other Emerging Tech



Management

Space Operations

Cyber

Training & Ranges

C4ISR & IT Systems

Medical

Support Operations

Hypersonics

4.3%

3.5%

14.6%

0.5%

11.9%

9.3%

55.2%

1.2%

23.3%

15.3%

50.9%

7.9%

23.8%

12.4%

3.5%

0.5%

0.3%

0.1%

3.1%

4.1%

0.6%

6.0%

0.2%

2.1%

2.2%

0.3%

2.9%

0.2%

0.0%

2.8%

% Point Change

Segment Requested Total % ChangeRank % Segment TotalEnacted

TotalTop Subsegments


43

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

MILDEP Air Force

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0



MILDEP Airforce


Organizing

Offseting

Operating-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCECONTRACTING OVERVIEW

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0



MILDEP Airforce


Organizing

Offseting

Operating-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

$80B

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Outfit$95.4 B

Organize$76.6 B

Offset$41.8 B

Operate$6.0 B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

300%

50%

-50%

$5B

100%

0%

-100%$0B $10B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

16-F

Y20


Test & Evaluation

Health

Medical


Pay & Incentives

Training & RangesCargo & Handling

Munitions

Other Emerging Tech


Management

Infrastructure

Support Platforms & SystemsC4ISR & IT Systems

Support OperationsUnmanned

Combat Platforms

$15B

250%

200%

150%

Fiscal Year

Overhead$162.8 B




44

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCECONTRACTING PRIORITIES



CA-33, VA-11

TX-12, GA-11

TX-12, CT-1

MA-5, VA-11

VA-11, CO-5

MO-1, AZ-3

OK-1, TN-9

CA-52, NH-2

CO-4, CO-5

CO-6, TX-4

TX-4, MD-2

FL-1, OH-12

42.7%

55.9%

86.0%

93.2%

42.0%

20.8%

12.0%

6.8%

100.0%

14.0%

23.3%

1.1%

2603

35

2661

1681

6220

177

855

16

761

1614

789

209

2466

37

2703

1827

6379

194

739

20

471

877

814

207

360

45

396

331

405

142

272

14

259

375

292

105

352

49

395

329

403

142

256

17

192

277

295

124


2019

$15.4 B

$10.3 B

$15.2 B

$9.5 B

$15.1 B

$3.8 B

$2.1 B

$697.1 M

$1.1 B

$5.0 B

$4.3 B

$193.3 M

$16.4 B

$11.7 B

$15.1 B

$9.4 B

$16.1 B

$4.5 B

$1.8 B

$446.4 M

$1.0 B

$4.1 B

$2.8 B

$222.8 M

7.1%

13.0%

0.5%

1.5%

6.4%

17.1%

5.1%

36.0%

2.6%

18.7%

35.9%

15.3%


Management



Other Emerging Tech

Infrastructure

Munitions

Training & Ranges

Unmanned

Support Operations

Cargo & Handling

C4ISR & IT Systems

Test & Evaluation

2020 % Change

43.8%

61.7%

87.3%

95.4%

42.8%

23.7%

10.4%

4.6%

100.0%

10.9%

14.6%

1.3%

2020 2020 20202019

Rank

2021 2020 2019 2019

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

Overhead

Outfit

Organize

Offset

Operate


45

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCETOP VENDORS & CONTRACTING OFFICES

VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY20

FY19

FY19

76.8%

70.7%

100.0%

63.9%

66.4%

86.1%

78.0%

95.6%

71.7%

100.4%

55.6%

96.3%

97.0%

60.7%

71.9%

39.4%

0.0%

78.5%

58.1%

64.1%

100.0%

43.0%

53.8%

60.6%

59.3%

71.6%

44.8%

27.0%

28.1%

59.8%

100.0%

21.4%

39.7%

33.4%

0.0%

57.0%

46.0%

39.4%

39.8%

28.4%

55.2%

72.4%

FY20

FY20

87.8%

69.2%

100.0%

84.7%

81.9%

77.8%

53.7%

95.0%

79.6%

99.1%

60.5%

97.2%

96.5%

62.4%

FY19

FY19

1495

982

2

3172

927

813

11

814

1866

204

19100

230

159

791

FY20

FY20

1542

1051

2

2992

947

921

14

775

1896

160

25221

199

156

693

$5.9 B

$1.1 B

$35.7 B

$1.4 B

$1.0 B

$2.8 B

$7.3 B

$3.2 B

$1.0 B

$3.3 B

$16.9 B

$4.5 B

$1.0 B

$15.3 B

2

4

2

1

4

1

5

15

7

6

10

3

9

5



Aerospace Corp.

AFLCMC

Boeing Co.


United Launch Alliance LLC

AFLCMC - Robins


Sierra Nevada Corp.

U.S. Department of the Air Force

General Electric Co.

General Atomic Technologies Corp.

AFLCMC - Hanscom

Contracting Offices

6.3

0.7

0

1.0

6.0

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.2

0

10.8

0.7

0.8

0.2



2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost- Plus

% Cost- Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source


DOD AGENCY ANALYSIS

46

47

DOD AGENCIESDECISION SCIENCE INSIGHTS

Defense Agencies and DoD Field Activities contribute to DoD’s warfighting potential by offering DoD-wide supplies or services of benefit to more than one Military Department. While many consider them to provide almost exclusively Overhead support, their offerings span the range of DoD’s elements of warfare.

Requested budget levels for several key Defense Agencies and DoD Field Activities decline in FY 2022 compared to FY 2021 enacted levels. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) all see decreases of 3-6% in FY 2022.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget takes a $1.6 billion hit in FY 2022, a reduction of 15% compared to FY 2021. Outfit and Offset shrink by a combined total of more than $1.5 billion, accounting for the vast majority of the drop in total funding. Unsurprisingly, given the decreases in funding for Outfit and Offset, the requested funding for MDA’s RDT&E and Procurement accounts decline by nearly $700 million and $800 million respectively, representing reductions of 9% for RDT&E and a massive 38% for Procurement compared to FY 2021.

Budget levels for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) rise by only $29 million in FY 2022, a paltry increase of less than 1% compared to FY 2021 levels. Moreover, growth in Overhead accounts for the vast majority of this growth, meaning that funding for Offset in DARPA’s budget remains essentially flat. Interestingly, over the past five years, the biggest shift in DARPA’s portfolio is a reallocation of funds from a range of Other Emerging Technologies toward those that relate to C4ISR & IT and C4ISR Advances. This underscores the importance of DoD’s ability to maintain an information advantage relative to great power rivals.

0

$0.2 B

$0.4 B

$0.6 B

$0.8 B

$1.0 B

$1.2 B

$1.4 B

$1.6 B

$1.8 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

C5ISR Other Emerging Tech C5ISR Advances

Defense Labs & University Research Missile Defense

DARPA

0

200m

400m

600m

800m

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

0

$0.2 B

$0.4 B

$0.6 B

$0.8 B

$1.0 B

$1.2 B

$1.4 B

$1.6 B

$1.8 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

C5ISR Other Emerging Tech C5ISR Advances

Defense Labs & University Research Missile Defense

DARPA

0

200m

400m

600m

800m

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

48

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$1.4B

$0.8B

$0.4B

$0B

$1.6B

$1.8B

$1.2B

$1.0B

$0.6B

$0.2B

C4ISR & IT Systems

Other Emerging Tech

C4ISR Advances


Missile Defense

$0.5B

0.8%

$0B $1B

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)

RDT&E

$1.5B

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0%

$2B $2.5B $3B $3.5B

Budget Account Momentum, FY18-22

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

Fiscal Year

Click Here to Reference the Department of Defense Agencies Guide

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name

% Point Change Obligation Share


% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

3

5

9

2

1

4

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.0%

0.0%

42.9%

0.0%

7.8%

100.0%

21.9%

100.0%

92.2%

0.0%

1.2%

13.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.7%

100.0%

98.8%

85.0%

100.0%

100.0%

95.3%

FY20

FY20

22.6%

0.0%

76.1%

0.4%

11.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

17.9%

3.5%

17.9%

54.4%

90.5%

1.3%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.0%

83.5%

1.0%

3.3%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

3.1%

0.0%

15.2%

87.8%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

37

35

77

199

107

24

41

141

57

50

543

13

16

138

FY19

FY19

35

35

64

207

97

29

42

111

63

52

546

8

7

108

$109.7 M

$59.6 M

$1.1 B

$61.4 M

$41.6 M

$173.9 M

$229.2 M

$61.7 M

$50.6 M

$197.4 M

$231.7 M

$71.3 M

$51.8 M

$258.2 M

1

6

2

37

7

4

8

3


Systems & Technology Research LLC

Johns Hopkins University


Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp.



SRI International


Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Top Contracting Offices

6.9

0.4

0.5

4.5

1.6

0.4

2.0

1.3

2.0

1.0

8.1

0.1

1.4

1.0

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020

Contract Obligations


Contract Actions

Contract Actions

FY20 Contract Pricing Type


AFRL RIK - ROME

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

U.S. Department of the Navy

49

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS


0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Management & Support Services Cyber C5ISR AI & ML

Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul (MRO)

DISA

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)50

DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Management & Support Services Cyber C5ISR AI & ML


DISA

-60m

-40m

-20m

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$2.0B

$1.0B

$0.5B

$0B

$1.5B

Management

Cyber

C4ISR & IT Systems

AI & ML


-3.0%

$0.6B

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)$1.2B

-4.0%

-5.0%

-7.0%$1.8B $2.4B

-6.0%

RDT&E Procurement OM

$0B

-2.0%


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

-1.0%

Fiscal Year

$2.5B


51

DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

10

21

2

1

3

58.8%

46.9%

100.0%

99.2%

41.2%

53.1%

0.0%

0.9%

100.0%

100.0%

8.3%

79.3%

0.0%

0.0%

91.7%

20.7%

100.0%

100.0%

77.8%

90.8%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

22.0%

6.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

0.3

7.6%

50.1%

16.2%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

7.0%

50.4%

100.0%

9.5%

21.2%

0.0%

88.8%

FY19

FY19

0.8

8.1%

61.5%

7.6%

0.0%

0.0%

2.2%

5.8%

73.9%

100.0%

5.4%

45.4%

0.0%

73.2%

FY20

FY20

34

47

1614

5454

18

16

17

399

734

2

1674

76

16

853

FY19

FY19

34

35

1391

1485

8

16

22

425

357

9

1111

25

14

3439

$126.3 M

$103.8 M

$1.6 B

$110.7 M

$77.9 M

$157.5 M

$127.1 M

$121.9 M

$78.0 M

$461.8 M

$490.6 M

$125.7 M

$78.1 M

$1.2 B

8

4

9

26

5

3

17

4

Leidos Holdings Inc.


AT&T Inc.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

Perspecta Inc.

By Light, Professional IT Services LLC

Centurylink Inc.

Iridium Communications Inc.


VAE Inc.


0.3%

1.6%

1.3%

2.2%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.3%

0.7%

6.1%

2.0%

1.4%

7.6%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

DITCO-NCR (PL6)

DITCO-Scott: IT Contracting (PL83)

DITCO-Scott (PL8)


52

DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Management Support Operations C5ISR Allies & Partners

Other Emerging Tech

DSCA

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2%

Cha

nge

FY 2

1-22

Dollars (Billions)

0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


Other Emerging Tech

DSCA

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$2B

$1.5B

$0B

$1B

Management

Support OperationsSecurity Assistance

15.0%

$0B $0.6B

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)

RDT&E

$1.1B

10.0%

5.0%

0%

-5.0%

$1.6B

OM


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

$0.5B

$2.2B

Fiscal Year

20.0%

-10.0%

$3B


53

DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

46

2

1

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

72.6%

30.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

11.7%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

FY20

FY20

0.0%

0.0%

70.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

21.6%

0.0%

44.9%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

99.2%

12.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

2

1

6

2

1

1

1

2

1

3

222

4

1

1

FY19

FY19

3

1

1

1

2

127

1

1

$6.3 M

$3.3 M

$52.2 M

$3.4 M

$2.1 M

$2.0 M

$7.2 M

$4.7 M

$2.3 M

$7.4 M

$23.2 M

$5.8 M

$2.4 M

$22.9 M

2

3

15

5


MAG DS Corp.

Civicactions Inc.

Institute For Defense Analyses Inc.

Seneca Global Services LLC

Poplicus Inc.

Science Applications International Corp.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

PBG Consulting LLC

Tetra Tech Inc.


7.5

2.7

7.8

1.6

2.1

3

12.7

0.5

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



FAS Office of Assisted Acquisition Services - FEDSIM

ACC Contracting Centers

Washington Headquarters Service (WHS)

ACC-APG Research Triangle Park, NC


54

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

0

$200 B

$400 B

$600 B

$800 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Management CBRNE Allies & Partners Cyber


DTRA

-10

-5

0

5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$800B

$1000B

$400B

$200B

$0B

$600B

Management

Cyber



Security Assistance

$0.2B

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)$0.4B

5.0%

-5.0%

$0.6B $1B

0%


$0B

10.0%

$0.8B

0

$200 B

$400 B

$600 B

$800 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Management CBRNE Allies & Partners Cyber


DTRA

-10

-5

0

5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

$2B

-10.0%

Fiscal Year


55

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

20

2

2

1

3

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

99.9%

78.1%

100.0%

100.0%

1.1%

0.1%

3.9%

0.0%

98.9%

99.9%

96.1%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

17.8%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.4%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

2.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

97.7%

0.0%

0.0%

15.7%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

FY19

FY19

43.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.5%

43.5%

0.0%

0.0%

13.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

4

24

1

6

15

14

8

11

53

2

744

20

17

1

FY19

FY19

4

29

3

11

16

8

15

78

1

770

11

15

$118.8 M

$34.2 M

$922.5 M

$53.3 M

$33.1 M

$5.2 M

$171.5 M

$54.7 M

$33.6 M

$8.5 M

$242.0 M

$66.4 M

$33.8 M

$407.2 M

5

3

10

8

1

7

4

CACI International Inc.





Teksynap Corp.

Applied Research Associates Inc.

Culmen International LLC


PAE Inc.


17

4.2

28.6

6.9

2.9

0.6

0.4

2.2

0.9

27.4

2.6

0.9

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions




US Department of the Air Force

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

DITCO-Scott: IT Contracting (PL83)


56

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKSMDA

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

0 2 4 6 8

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)0

$2 B

$4 B

$6 B

$8 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Missile Defense Test & Evaluation (T&E) C5ISR

Management Allies & Partners

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$8B

$4B

$2B

$0B

$6BMissile Defense

Management

Test & Evaluation

Security AssistanceC4ISR & IT Systems

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)Fiscal Year$2B

-80.0%

$4B $8B

-100.0%


$0B $6B0

$2 B

$4 B

$6 B

$8 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Missile Defense Test & Evaluation (T&E) C5ISR Management

Allies & Partners

MDA

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

0 2 4 6 8

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

-60.0%


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

MILCON


57

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCYDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

3

4

21

12

1

64.1%

60.2%

0.0%

0.0%

35.9%

39.8%

31.7%

21.0%

52.3%

1.4%

90.9%

0.0%

47.7%

98.6%

9.1%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

48.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

52.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

FY20

FY20

98.3%

39.6%

0.0%

0.0%

90.2%

0.0%

2.6%

0.0%

6.4%

100.0%

74.1%

0.2%

0.0%

100.0%

FY19

FY19

87.5%

39.8%

0.0%

0.0%

91.0%

0.0%

1.2%

0.0%

5.9%

100.0%

63.8%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

65

18

48

60

97

27

6

1

19

44

1440

19

1

3

FY19

FY19

67

21

4

3

103

23

10

17

61

1421

14

$1.0 B

$167.3 M

$12.3 B

$275.8 M

$84.8 M

$43.8 M

$3.0 B

$359.9 M

$144.2 M

$53.3 M

$6.0 B

$389.5 M

$151.2 M

$161.4 M

1

5

8

2

7

6



Torch Technologies Inc.


Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.

Boeing Co.


Parsons Corp.

Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC


35.5

1.2

0.9

1.3

25.3

0.7

0.1

5.4

0.6

2

0.6

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



ACC-RSA Redstone Arsenal, AL

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

ACC Contracting Centers


58

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKSUSSOC

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)0

$2 B

$4 B

$6 B

$8 B

$10 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Ground & Special Operations Support Platforms & Systems C5ISR

Infrastructure & Environment Munitions

202020192018 20222021

FY18

-22

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions


$10B

$6B

$4B

$0B

$8B


C4ISR & IT Systems


InfrastructureMunitions

FY18-22 Dollars (Billions)$2B

-20.0%

$4B $8B


$0B $6B0

$2 B

$4 B

$6 B

$8 B

$10 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Ground & Special Operations Support Platforms & Systems C5ISR

Infrastructure & Environment Munitions

USSOC

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10%

Cha

nge

FY 2

1-22

Dollars (Billions)

-15.0%

$2B

-5.0%

$10B


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

-10.0%

0.0%

MILCON

Fiscal Year


59

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDDOD AGENCIES & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

3

2

1

3

5.5%

0.8%

100.0%

5.1%

94.5%

87.2%

0.0%

94.9%

72.6%

76.9%

94.6%

75.8%

27.4%

23.1%

3.3%

24.2%

98.3%

100.0%

69.3%

85.7%

0.0%

100.0%

1.7%

0.0%

19.2%

14.3%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

0.0%

10.9%

0.0%

0.2%

94.0%

89.5%

0.8%

91.9%

19.1%

7.1%

24.2%

33.9%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

0.2

11.7

0.0%

0.1

94.3

89.3

0.1

92.5

49.2

5.9

26.2

98.7

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

431

34

1

434

52

78

40

261

146

27

1773

32

8

2

FY19

FY19

451

40

457

72

89

69

282

121

19

1763

25

6

$247.4 M

$140.7 M

$2.4 B

$144.7 M

$85.7 M

$104.5 M

$454.5 M

$191.2 M

$88.5 M

$631.1 M

$953.4 M

$219.7 M

$104.5 M

$944.2 M

2

4

7

14

5

8

10



Balfour Beatty PLC

Boeing Co.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation



Leonardo SPA

Sierra Nevada Corp.

KBR Inc.


3.0

0.0

4.4

1.9

0.5

0.7

1.1

2.0

0.7

1.0

1.5

0.6

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Special Operations Forces (SOF) Support Activity

USSOCOM TAKO

United States Special Operations Command

USACE Norfolk District


INTERAGENCY ANALYSIS

60

61

INTERAGENCYDECISION SCIENCE INSIGHTS

As outlined in the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (INSSG), the Biden-Harris administration broadened the federal government’s understanding of national security and recast DoD’s role within it.

In addition to security challenges posed by nation states, terrorists, and transnational criminal organizations, the administration added the pandemic, climate change, extremism, and discrimination. Moreover, it breaks down traditional lines between domestic and foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of the economy and national resilience in relation to security challenges.

Consequently, the Biden-Harris administration seeks a “responsible” use of the military while elevating diplomacy above it as the “tool of first resort” in foreign policy. DoD’s 1.6% budget growth in FY 2022 is modest in comparison to that of most of its interagency counterparts. In particular, the budget request for the State Department rises 10.3% to $58.5 billion. The added funds aim to reestablish America’s leadership on global initiatives, such as climate, health and security, and democracy promotion.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) budget request jumps 20% to $10.2 billion. The bulk of the funding is directed as basic research in science, engineering, and technology. Moreover,

the administration announced a new NSF directorate for technology, innovation, and partnerships that will receive $50 billion over eight years to expedite technology development for NSF programs as well as others across the federal government. With the aim of strengthening U.S. leadership in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum, and advanced communications, this directorate could have a significant impact on DoD’s ability to maintain a military-technical advantage relative to China.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget rises 6.6% to $24.8 billion. It requests increases nearly across the board and especially in space technology, aeronautics, and science. Nearly a third of the budget, $7.9B, seeks scientific breakthroughs in the nation’s understanding of the universe, solar system, and Earth.

U.S. national security is at its best when all elements of national power become mutually reinforcing. The President’s Budget Request for FY 2022 aims to bolster non-defense agencies’ ability to conduct their missions by increasing their budgets while limiting DoD’s. Whether the administration maintains that approach for FY 2023 and beyond may depend on inflation and its impact on DoD and the broader U.S. government’s buying power.

1

2

3

1

2

3

39.8%1 $7.4 B 5.9%Science

2 $4.7 B 65.3%Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

17.3%1 $6.8 B 6.5%Defense Environmental Cleanup

2 $1.2 B 27.2%Other Defense Activities

42.7%1 $15.5 B 0.9%Weapons Activities

2 $1.9 B 14.4%Defense Nuclear NonproliferationNational Nuclear Security Administration

Energy Programs

Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Rank Bureau % Share Agency Budget

Budget Account Rank Budget Account

FY22 FY22 FY22FY22FY21

31.1%

18.6%

49.7%

FY21 % Change

Account Budget

62

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$50 B

$40 B

$30 B

$20 B

$10 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Energy

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$10B

$20B

$30B

$40B

$50B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

National Nuclear SecurityAdministration

Energy Programs

Environmentaland OtherDefenseActivities

Dept. of Energy

Budget Request Dollars by Bureau, FY22

National Nuclear Security Administration$19.7 B

Energy Programs$18.64 B

Environmental and Other Defense Activities$8.0 B

Year-Over-Year Budget, FY18-22Enacted (FY18-21) Requested (FY22)

Fiscal Year

Click Here to Reference the U.S. Interagency Guide

63

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

4

3

7

2

1

3

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

97.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

8.7%

100.0%

100.0%

99.2%

100.0%

100.0%

85.7%

FY20

FY20

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

4.5%

4.7%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

12.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

0.0%

9.2%

32.3%

FY20

FY20

2

3

1

250

1

5

4

46

1

1

230

1

2

773

FY19

FY19

2

2

1

215

1

5

4

61

1

1

538

1

3

684

$2.9 B

$2.1 B

$11.3 B

$2.3 B

$1.1 B

$3.5 B

$3.1 B

$2.5 B

$1.5 B

$3.7 B

$5.3 B

$2.7 B

$1.6 B

$5.1 B

1

2

8

9

14

6

5

16

Honeywell International Inc.

Battelle Memorial Institute Inc.

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC

Triad National Security LLC

Fluor Corp.


Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC


UT-Battelle LLC

State of California


6.2

1.1

0.3

1.8

2.7

3.6

0.4

1.5

6.2

0.7

0.5

0.7

0.7

9.5

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Office of Science ISC - Oak Ridge Office

Office of Science ISC - Chicago Office

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

US Department of Energy (DOE)


1

2

3

1

2

3

18.0%1 $13.4 B 4.9%Operations and Support

2 $952.8 M 48.2%Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

15.3%1 $9.0 B 6.3%Operations and Support

2 $1.6 B 30.7%Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

33.9%1 $19.3 B 2.2%Disaster Relief Fund

2 $3.3 B 0.2%Federal AssistanceFederal Emergency Management Agency

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

United States Coast Guard


Budget Account Rank Budget Account Account Budget

64

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Homeland

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$20B

$40B

$60B

$80B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Federal EmergencyManagement Agency

U.S. Customs andBorder Protection

UnitedStates

Coast Guard

U.S.Immigration

and CustomsEnforcement

TransportationSecurity

Administration

UnitedStatesSecretService

Dept. of Homeland


Federal Emergency Management Agency$24.0 B

U.S. Customs and Border Protection$14.7 B

U.S. Coast Guard$10.9 B

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement$8.0 B

Transportation Security Administration$8.6 B


20.2%

14.9%

32.2%

FY21 % Change

Fiscal Year



65

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

7

36

3

1

100.0%

87.5%

17.4%

54.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

20.3%

100.0%

71.9%

0.0%

80.5%

0.0%

4.8%

0.0%

0.7%

100.0%

43.7%

95.2%

26.0%

100.0%

74.1%

0.0%

5.0%

0.2%

53.6%

0.0%

0.1%

FY20

FY20

99.9%

0.0%

0.3%

17.4%

4.5%

17.3%

0.0%

62.8%

0.0%

62.6%

12.4%

4.8%

0.0%

7.6%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.1%

21.6%

22.1%

58.2%

0.0%

37.7%

0.0%

61.9%

22.3%

28.4%

14.7%

FY20

FY20

7

238

38

2115

37

122

40

640

2

223

1842

65

1

720

FY19

FY19

202

36

1519

27

143

53

536

1

226

2418

58

411

$500.7 M

$343.6 M

$1.9 B

$379.1 M

$289.5 M

$1.4 B

$518.4 M

$398.1 M

$319.7 M

$1.5 B

$544.7 M

$404.9 M

$332.7 M

$1.7 B

3

7

6

4

25

4

Parkdale Inc.

Securitas AB

Global Medical Response Inc.

Geo Group Inc.



Eastern Shipbuilding Group Inc.





0.1%

1.1%

0.6%

0.3%

0.3%

0.6%

7.5%

2.4%

0.6%

1.4%

1.0%

0.7%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



US Customs & Border Protection (CBP)

Incident Support Section (ISS70) - Washington

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

ICE ERO Detention Management


1

3

2

1

2

3

23.2%1 $2.5 B 8.4%Salaries and Expenses, U.S. Attorneys

2 $2.2 B 0.1%Federal Prisoner Detention

21.7%1 $7.7 B 4.2%Salaries and Expenses

2 $3.0 M 0.0%Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated

30.6%1 $10.2 B 3.7%Salaries and Expenses

2 $62.0 M 89.0%ConstructionFederal Bureau of Investigation

Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals

Federal Prison System


Budget Account Rank Budget Account Account Budget

66

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$40 B

$30 B

$20 B

$10 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Justice

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$10B

$20B

$30B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

$40BFederal Bureau of

Investigation

Legal Activities and U.S.Marshals

Federal PrisonSystem

DrugEnforcement

Administration

Oce ofJustice

Programs

GeneralAdministration

Dept. of Justice


Federal Bureau of Investigation$10.3 B

Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals$7.8 B

Federal Prison System$7.3 B

Drug Enforcement Administration$2.4 B

Office ofJusticePrograms$2.8 B

ATF$1.6 B


21.4%

23.8%

30.5%

FY21 % Change

Fiscal Year



67

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

4

7

2

1

3

100.0%

15.8%

22.3%

70.4%

0.0%

0.0%

24.9%

6.4%

100.0%

16.0%

73.4%

40.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

39.5%

100.0%

99.9%

100.0%

6.1%

48.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.6%

FY20

FY20

1.1

0.4%

0.4%

15.7%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

12.8%

11.9

21.4%

25.4%

36.1%

2.2%

23.7%

FY19

FY19

6.1%

0.4%

0.0%

11.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.5%

25.0%

33.3%

29.7%

15.0%

1.4%

28.1%

FY20

FY20

84

735

91

4254

2

52

18

2196

150

794

19545

950

142

3320

FY19

FY19

66

742

30

5340

3

51

24

1871

86

1087

24007

894

157

3266

$199.5 M

$145.5 M

$2.2 B

$145.8 M

$96.9 M

$709.6 M

$200.5 M

$156.4 M

$100.2 M

$1.4 B

$373.4 M

$174.2 M

$118.7 M

$1.7 B

27

3

9

15

8

5

5

Geo Group Inc.


Accenture PLC

Clark Construction LLC

CGI Inc.

CoreCivic Inc.

Nana Regional Corp.

Government of The United States

Naphcare Inc.



1.1%

0.1%

0.0%

4.0%

2.5%

1.3%

1.8%

2.7%

1.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.1%

0.2%

2.3%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Justice Management Division (JMD)

Federal Prison System

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)


1

2

3

1

2

3

48.0%1 $9.5 B 7.7%Diplomatic Programs

2 $3.0 B 46.9%Consular and Border Security Programs

10.9%1 $1.9 B 32.5%Contributions for Int. Peacekeeping

Activities2 $1.7 B 10.4%Contributions to Int. Organizations

48.7%1 $10.1 B 23.8%Global Health Programs

2 $3.8 B 12.0%Migration and Refugee AssistanceOther

Administration of Foreign Affairs

International Organizations and Conferences



41.4%

8.7%

54.5%

Account Budget

68

DEPARTMENT OF STATEAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$60 B

$50 B

$40 B

$30 B

$20 B

$10 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of State

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$10B

$20B

$30B

$40B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

$50B

$60BOther

Administration of ForeignAffairs

InternationalSecurity

Assistance

InternationalOrganizations and

Conferences

Agency forInternationalDevelopment

Dept. of State


Other$16.1 B

Administration of Foreign Affairs$15.9 B

FY22 FY22 FY22FY22FY21 FY21 % Change

InternationalSecurityAssistance$11.9 B

Agency for International Development$11.5 B

International Organizations & Conferences$3.6 B

Fiscal Year



69

DEPARTMENT OF STATEAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

2

5

9

11

1

2

67.0%

92.6%

100.0%

0.0%

13.1%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

33.9%

100.0%

26%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

11.6%

0.0%

55.1%

5.2%

0.4%

98.8%

87.7%

0.0%

10.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

0.0%

30.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

19.2%

0.0%

11.9%

1.0%

4.9%

18.3%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

28.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

6.0%

0.0%

11.5%

0.4%

0.0%

16.2%

0.0%

0.0%

10.6%

FY20

FY20

98

8957

26

2

22

52

3

456

41

7

27481

31

5

1063

FY19

FY19

121

10156

27

2

21

54

3

685

32

9

29109

33

3

899

$397.4 M

$212.5 M

$8.8 B

$227.7 M

$188.9 M

$89.2 M

$563.6 M

$241.3 M

$192.2 M

$110.2 M

$660.5 M

$275.3 M

$205.0 M

$132.2 M

1

6

71

37

3

10

11

3

PAE Inc.

Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees


B.L. Harbert Holdings LLC

CGI Inc.

Phoenix Air Group Inc.


Day & Zimmermann Group Inc.

Accenture PLC

Garda World Security Corp.


0.2%

0.1%

0.2%

1.3%

2.9%

0.4%

1.8%

0.1%

1.2%

0.4%

2.0%

0.7%

1.5%

0.1%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions




Acquisitions - FSI - WASHINGTON

US Department of State (DOS)

Acquisitions - RPSO FRANKFURT - WASHINGTON


11 100.0%3 $4.0 B 0.7%Space Operations

4 $3.0 B 3.8%Safety, Security and Mission Services

5 $1.4 B 29.5%Space Technology

6 $915.0 M 10.4%Aeronautics

1 $7.9 B 8.6%Science

2 $6.9 B 5.4%Exploration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration



100.0%

Account Budget

70

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATIONAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$25 B

$20 B

$15 B

$10 B

$5 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Aero

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$5B

$10B

$15B

$20B

$25B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)


National Aeronautics and Space Administration$24.8 B


Fiscal Year



71

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATIONAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

5

8

3

2

1

0.0%

21.9%

10.1%

9.0%

100.0%

78.1%

89.7%

90.9%

1.9%

9.3%

25.8%

0.0%

98.1%

90.7%

73.9%

100.0%

2.2%

0.7%

20.7%

2.1%

0.2%

27.1%

97.8%

99.3%

78.5%

97.9%

99.8%

72.8%

FY20

FY20

99.1%

37.8%

2.5%

15.6%

45.0%

1.2%

0.0%

100.0%

3.2%

0.0%

41.1%

85.6%

99.8%

23.0%

FY19

FY19

99.7%

54.5%

0.8%

17.9%

39.3%

1.5%

0.0%

100.0%

3.3%

0.0%

41.6%

87.6%

99.4%

36.6%

FY20

FY20

680

49

91

628

91

102

38

677

42

32

552

15

58

428

FY19

FY19

915

58

101

634

120

188

30

918

35

29

606

18

60

406

$1.2 B

$366.6 M

$3.4 B

$453.0 M

$257.4 M

$2.4 B

$1.5 B

$737.1 M

$269.6 M

$2.6 B

$2.6 B

$837.8 M

$341.2 M

$2.8 B

2

4

10

18

3

7

6

4

California Institute of Technology


Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

Boeing Co.




KBR Inc.




2.2%

1.4%

0.2%

2.1%

1.8%

0.3%

0.1%

2.5%

0.0%

0.2%

6.0%

0.7%

0.7%

0.7%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center

NASA - Johnson Space Center


72

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

$10 B

$8 B

$6 B

$4 B

$2 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Science

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$2B

$4B

$6B

$8B

$10B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)


National Science Foundation$10.34 B

11 100.0%3 $468.0 M 24.8%

Agency Operations and Award Management

4 $249.0 M 3.3%Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction

5 $20.0 M 11.1%Office of Inspector General

6 $4.6 M 0.0%Office of the National Science Board

1 $8.1 B 18.3%Research and Related Activities

2 $1.3 B 33.0%Education and Human Resources

National Science Foundation



100.0%

Account Budget


Fiscal Year



73

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONAGENCY & VENDOR BENCHMARKS

Top VendorsRank

Rank

Name

Name



% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY20

FY20

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY20

FY20

1

6

1

2

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9.0%

14.1%

1.5%

20.7%

86.5%

0.0%

0.0%

54.1%

96.7%

0.0%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.8%

0.0%

96.1%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.3%

0.0%

90.3%

0.0%

FY20

FY20

1

3

11

3

4

2

5

4

2

3

527

12

6

54

FY19

FY19

2

2

11

3

2

7

1

2

550

8

4

40

$24.1 M

$11.1 M

$503.3 M

$12.2 M

$6.3 M

$1.6 M

$43.9 M

$18.0 M

$9.3 M

$1.6 M

$234.2 M

$23.2 M

$9.8 M

$11.2 M

2

7

16

5

8

3

3


Accenture PLC

Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corp.



Air Center Helicopters Inc.


Synectics For Management Decisions Inc.


Riva Solutions Inc.


10.2%

7.4%

0.2%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

0.1%

2.2%

2.2%

0.8%

0.5%

2.5%

0.6%

0.4%

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2021

2021

2020

2020



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, NBC Aviation Management Headquarters

IBC Acquisition Services - Colorado

NSF BFA - Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support (DACS)

IBC Acquisition Services Directorate


GUIDES & VENDOR INDEX

74

75

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GUIDE




Infrastructure & Environment

Logistics Management

$40B

$30B

$20B

$10B

$0B

RDT&E REV MILCON

0

$10 M

$20 M

$30 M

$40 M

$50 M

$60 M

$70 M

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Supporting line graph

202020192018 20222021

Infrastructure & Environment

Medical

Management

LogisticsDefensive Protective Measures

$50B

$60B

$70B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22SupportingNEW $60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0

CBRNE Infrastructure &Environment

Logistics Management Medical

RDTE OM PROC REV MILCON MERHFC




Bridging

Facilities Operations -…

Naval Logistics

Cargo Vehicles




0 400 800 1200 1600

1500

999.70%

193.70%

91.50%

84.20%

-76.80%

-76.90%

-79.90%

-87.10%

-97.00%

Procurement MERHFCO&M

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

Ground Logistics - Material Handling

Facilities Construction - Naval Shore Facilities


Bridging

Facilities Operations - Utilities

Naval Logistics

Cargo Vehicles

Facilities Construction - Ranges

Facilities Construction - Safety & Security


Medical

2087.1%

999.7%

193.7%

91.5%

84.2%

-76.8%

-76.9%

-79.9%

-87.1%

-97.0%

Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22Year-over-year investment dollars by subsegment, FY18-21 enacted, and FY22 requested

Budget Account by Subsegment, FY22FY22 investment dollars by subsegment and budget account

Top Five Increase & Decrease by Capability, FY18-22Top five increase and decrease of percent change from FY18 - FY22 by capability


Click Here to Reference the Table of Contents

$6B$4B$2B$0B $14B$12B$10B$8B

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

800%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

100%

120%

140%

700%

Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22Defensive Protective Measures Medical ManagementInfrastructure Logistics

$30B$25B $35B


Facilities Construction - Safety & Security

Ground Logistics

HeadquartersAcquisition & Program Management

Facilities Construction - Planning & Design

Medical R&DChem-Bio Defense

Naval Logistics

Facilities EnvironmentalFacilities Construction - Housing

Administration

Health Care ContributionFacilities Maintenance

Fourth Estate

Facilities Operations - Base Operations

Medical Operations

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

Facilities Construction - Aircraft & Airfield

Facilities Construction - Maintenance Facilities

Facilities Construction - Operational & Administrative

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 12M 14M

Rec

essi

on

vel

oci

ty (k

m/s

)

Distance from Earth (million light-years)

Overhead 6.18.21, colored, skewed

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GUIDE

Budget Momentum by Capability, FY21-22Percent change of all capabilities within respective segment from FY21-FY22


Air Force 8.8% 0.2% 68.9%


$14.8 B $100.7 M $36.3 M$16.1 B $100.8 M $11.3 M1 2


Infrastructure

Rank Ranks MILDEP by total investment dollars within subsegment

Operations & MaintenanceTotal Operations & Maintenance investment dollars

RDT&ETotal RDT&E investment dollars

ProcurementTotal Procurement investment dollars

76Click Here to Reference the Table of Contents


PNT Systems

C2 - Ground



Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles


Security Vehicles

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000%

2779.04%

870.83%

841.31%

645.56%

-86.65%

-95.31%

-96.82%

-97.05%

-99.05%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Air Force

$150B

$100B

$50B

$0B

$200B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


PNT Systems

C2 - Ground



Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles


Security Vehicles

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

3000%

2779.04%

870.83%

841.31%

645.56%

-86.65%

-95.31%

-96.82%

-97.05%

-99.05%

$200 B

$150 B

$100 B

$50 B

0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


0

$20 B

$40 B

$60 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


MILDEP Air Force

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

202020192018 20222021


PNT Systems

Ground C2


Electronic Attack (EA)

Rockets

Counter-IED

Cargo Vehicles

F/W Light Airlift

Security Vehicles

15,088,300% | $302 M

2,779% | $207 M

871% | $62 M

841% | $1.1 B

646% | $37 M

-87% | $37 M

-95% | $3 M

-97% | $1 M

-97% | $8 M

-99% | $0.5 M


Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)D

olla

rs (B

illio

ns)

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year


YoY Investment by Budget Account, FY18-22RDT&E REVProcurement OM MILPERS MILCON MERHFC


77

Segment Requested Total % ChangeRank % of Segment Total

1

2

3

$63.6 B $62.7 B

$6.1 B $6.0 B

$4.4 B $4.2 B

1

2

3

81.8%

7.8%

5.5%

82.4%

7.9%

5.7%

Enacted Total

FY21 FY21 FY21FY22 FY22 FY22 % Point Change

Organize

Top Subsegments

Pay & Incentives

Training & Ranges

Security Assistance

1.5%

1.6%

3.9%

0.6%

0.1%

0.2%

MILITARY DEPARTMENTS GUIDE

YoY Investment by Budget Account, FY18-22Year-over-year investment dollars by budget account, FY18 - 21 enacted, FY22 requested

YoY Investment by Segment, FY18-22Year-over-year investment dollars by segment, FY18 - 21 enacted, FY22 requested

Top Five Increase & Decrease by Subsegment, FY18-22Top five increase and decrease of percent change from FY18 - FY22 by capability

SegmentTop 5 budget priority segments, orange boxes in the main taxonomy

% of Segment Total Percent of segment total within respective MILDEP by subsegment

Enacted Total Total investment budget dollars enacted by subsegment in FY21

Top SubsegmentsTop 3 budget priority subsegments, white boxes in the main taxonomy

% Change Percent change from enacted to requested by subsegment, FY21-22

Requested Total Total investment budget dollars requested by subsegment in FY22

Rank Rank of subsegments based on their investment dollars in FY21 compared to FY22


-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

MILDEP Air Force

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0



MILDEP Airforce


Organizing

Offseting

Operating-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$20 B

0



MILDEP Airforce


Organizing

Offseting

Operating-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

$60B

$40B

$20B

$0B

$80B

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Outfit$95.4 B

Organize$76.6 B

Offset$41.8 B

Operate$6.0 B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

300%

50%

-50%

$5B

100%

0%

-100%$0B $10B

Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

16-F

Y20


Test & Evaluation

Health

Medical


Pay & Incentives

Training & RangesCargo & Handling

Munitions

Other Emerging Tech


Management

Infrastructure

Support Platforms & SystemsC4ISR & IT Systems

Support OperationsUnmanned

Combat Platforms

$15B

250%

200%

150%

Fiscal Year

Overhead$162.8 B



78



AZ-5, MA-6

OR-5, AL-2

OH-2, KS-4

82.3%

11.8%

4.6%

4269

1173

661

3993

1185

616

420

292

292

418

301

282


Organize

2019

$11.0 B

$1.6 B

$611.5 M

$11.2 B

$2.3 B

$559.4 M

1.1%

45.8%

8.5%


Training & Ranges


Pay & Incentives

2020 % Change

78.1%

16.1%

3.9%

2020 2020 20202019

Rank

1

2

3

1

2

3

2021 2020 2019 2019


Segment by Total Obligation, FY16-20Year-over-year segment total by prime awarded value, FY16-20

Segment by Total Obligation, FY16-20Combined total of segments by prime awarded value, FY16-20

Contracts Momentum by Subsegment, FY16-20Percent change in prime awarded value by subsegment, FY16-20

SegmentTop 5 budget priority segments, orange boxes in the main taxonomy

Number of VendorsTotal number of prime contractsFY19 & FY20 by subsegment

Top Congressional District by POPCongressional district with the largest prime award contract obligations FY19-20 based on place of performance

Total Obligated AmountSum of total prime contract obligations for each subsegment FY19 compared to FY20

Rank Rank of subsegments based on their prime awarded obligations in FY20 compared to FY21

% of Segment TotalPercent of total segment prime award contract obligations by subsegment

SubsegmentTop 3 budget priority subsegments, white boxes in the main taxonomy

# of Congressional DistrictsTotal number of congressional districts with prime awarded contracts based on place of performance


79


Vendors

Rank Name

FY20FY20 FY20 FY20FY19

94.5% 94.7% 5.3%

FY20

94.6%

FY19

682

FY20

662 $11.4 B1 Lockheed Martin Corporation 1.9


1

2021 2020


Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price % Cost- Plus% Sole Source

Rank Ranked by total contract obligations FY20 compared to FY21

Percent Point Change Share ObligationPercentage point change in share of total department contract obligations FY19-20 by vendor and contracting office

Note on the Differences between Budget and Contract Data in the ScorecardBudget authority is the allowable amount of money an Agency can use to enter Obligations. Typically, these funds need to be obligated by the end of the year, otherwise they lapse. Congress can also obligate multi-year or “no-year” funds that don’t expire; this is more typical with long-term initiatives (e.g. major defense programs).

Obligations occur when Agencies enter into contracts, submit purchase orders, hire personnel, etc. The award amounts shown for contracts can comprise multiple years of budget authority, and do not share a linear relationship with a single years’ budget request.

Total Contract Obligations Total prime awarded contract obligations FY20 by vendor and contracting office

Contract ActionsCount of contracts and task orders FY20 versus FY19 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Sole SourcePercent of contracts that are sole-source awarded in FY20 compared to FY19

Percent Fixed-PricePercent of FY20 contracts that are fixed-price

Percent Cost-Plus Percent of FY20 contracts that are cost-plus


80

Top VendorsRank Name

% Point Change Obligation Share % Sole Sourced

FY20 % FP % CPFY20

3 0.0% 100.0%

FY20

22.6%

FY19

0.0%

FY20

37

FY19

35$231.7 MLockheed Martin Corporation 6.91

2021 2020


Contract Actions


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCIES GUIDE

Year-Over-Year by Subsegment, FY18-22Year-over-year investment dollars by subsegment, FY18-21 enacted, and FY22 requested

Budget Account Momentum, FY18-22Percent change of budget account dollars within the respective DoD agency from FY18-22


Contract ObligationsTotal prime awarded contract obligations FY20 by vendor and contracting office


Percent Point Change Obligation SharePercentage point change in share of total department contract obligations FY19-20 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Sole SourcedPercent of contracts that are sole-source awarded in FY20 compared to FY19

0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


Other Emerging Tech

DSCA

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

0

$0.5 B

$1.0 B

$1.5 B

$2.0 B

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022


Other Emerging Tech

DSCA

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2

% C

hang

e FY

21-

22

Dollars (Billions)

202020192018 20222021

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)


$2B

$1.5B

$0B

$1B

Management

Support Operations

C4ISR & IT Systems

Security AssistanceOther Emerging Tech

15.0%

$0B $0.6B

Dollars (Billions)

RDT&E

$1.1B

10.0%

5.0%

0%

-5.0%

$1.6B

OM


Perc

ent C

hang

e FY

18-2

2

$0.5B

$2.2B

FY20 Contract Pricing TypePercent of FY20 contracts that are fixed-price or cost-plus, respectively


81

11 42.7%1 $15.5 B 0.9%Weapons Activities

2 $1.9 B 14.4%Defense Nuclear NonproliferationNational Nuclear Security Administration




49.7%

FY21 % Change

Account Budget

$50 B

$40 B

$30 B

$20 B

$10 B

02018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Dept. of Energy

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022$0B

$10B

$20B

$30B

$40B

$50B

Dol

lars

(Bill

ions

)

Year

National Nuclear SecurityAdministration

Energy Programs

Environmentaland OtherDefenseActivities

Dept. of Energy


National Nuclear Security Administration$19.7 B

Energy Programs$18.64 B

Environmental and Other Defense Activities$8.0 B


U.S. INTERAGENCY GUIDE

Year-Over-Year Budget, FY18-22 Year-over-year investment dollars, FY18-21 enacted, FY22 requested

Budget Request Dollars by Bureau, FY22Total investment dollars requested by bureau, FY22

Rank Ranked by total investment dollars requested by bureau, FY22 compared to FY21

Budget Account RankRanked by total investment dollars requested by budget account, FY22

Percent Share Agency BudgetPercent of total agency dollars requested by bureau, FY21 compared to FY22

Account BudgetTotal FY22 requested dollars by budget account and percent change from FY21


82

U.S. INTERAGENCY GUIDE

Top VendorsRank Name

% Point Change Obligation Share % Sole Sourced

FY20 % FP % CPFY20

3 0.0% 100.0%

FY20

22.6%

FY19

0.0%

FY20

37

FY19

35$231.7 MLockheed Martin Corporation 6.91

2021 2020


Contract Actions



Contract ObligationsTotal prime awarded contract obligations FY20 by vendor and contracting office


Percent Point Change Obligation SharePercentage point change in share of total department contract obligations FY19-20 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Sole SourcedPercent of contracts that are sole-source awarded in FY20 compared to FY19

FY20 Contract Pricing TypePercent of FY20 contracts that are fixed-price or cost-plus, respectively


83

VENDOR INDEX

Vendor Vendor Vendor PagePagePage

71 53

51 65

55 69 59, 71

73 67 57, 65, 71, 73

33, 55, 63 55 49, 57, 71

45 63 51

69 33, 65 51, 55, 65, 73

57, 63

33, 39, 49 39, 63 59

59 6933, 39, 45, 49, 57,

59, 71

Accenture PLC






California Institute of Technology

Centurylink Inc.


General Atomic Technologies Corp.

39

33, 45, 59

33, 39, 49, 51, 59, 65, 69

49

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

Institute For Defense Analyses Inc.

51, 73

55, 65, 67

71

51

65

67

51

63

67

73

33, 39, 45, 49, 57, 71

33

B.L. Harbert Holdings LLC

CoreCivic Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.


Culmen International LLC

Day & Zimmermann Group Inc. KBR Inc.

Boeing Co.

Garda World Security Corp.

45 69

49, 51, 53, 55, 73

33, 39, 45, 57, 59, 71

65, 67 67

AT&T Inc.

Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC

Iridium Communications Inc.Aerospace Corp.

General Electric Co.

63, 73 45 53

Air Center Helicopters Inc.

CGI Inc.

Geo Group Inc.

Global Medical Response Inc.

Government of The United States

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

Honeywell International Inc.


Civicactions Inc.

Applied Research Associates Inc.


Bell Boeing Joint Project Office

Fluor Corp.

T

BAESY

BAFYY

AJRD

ACM

AJRD

FLR

GE

GEO

HPE

HON

GD

HII

IRDM

JEC

LHX

KBR

BA

BAH

CACI

LUMN

GIB

CXW

ACN 67, 69, 73 67, 69 39, 55

Balfour Beatty PLC

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited


Eastern Shipbuilding Group Inc.

57, 71 53 53


Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

MAG DS Corp.



Nana Regional Corp.

Naphcare Inc.

Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corp.


Oshkosh Corp.

Leonardo SPA

LDOS

FINMY

LMT

NOC

NTTYY

OSK



TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

84

VENDOR INDEX

Vendor Vendor PagePage

53

33, 39, 45, 49, 57

69

51

53

4551

63

57

63

73

63

53, 55, 67, 69, 71

PAE Inc.

SRI International

Parkdale Inc.

State of California

Synectics For Management Decisions Inc.

Systems & Technology Research LLC

Teksynap Corp.

53

Poplicus Inc.

63

73

49

55

Riva Solutions Inc.

United Launch Alliance LLC

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC

UT-Battelle LLC

VAE Inc.

Sierra Nevada Corp.

49

45, 59


Triad National Security LLC

Parsons Corp.

65

PBG Consulting LLC

Tetra Tech Inc.

Perspecta Inc.

Torch Technologies Inc.

Phoenix Air Group Inc.

Seneca Global Services LLC

RTX

SCTBF

SAIC

PRSP

PSN

BA

BAH

CACI

TTEK

VAE

PAE 55, 69

53


Securitas AB

65

57

TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

THE 2021 FEDERAL SCORECARDGovini is a Decision Science company whose mission is to advance U.S. competitiveness through dynamic data and machine learning.

Govini’s National Security Knowledge Graph and Decision Science Platform are used at scale across the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Military Departments, Intelligence Community, and Defense Agencies. These capabilities enable Defense and Intelligence leaders to better direct investments to innovation and modernization, balance mission portfolios to reflect agency priorities, and achieve superior financial and mission outcomes. With Govini, DoD operators, analysts, managers and executives gain unprecedented visibility into the companies, capabilities, and capital in National Security to solve challenges pertaining to Supply Chain Security, Resourcing & Reform, Technology & Innovation, and the Defense Industrial Base. Govini has offices in Arlington, Virginia, San Francisco, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

[email protected]

the 2021 federal scorecard

Documents