UNSPSC 92112301: Domestic military bases

UNSPSC 92112301 Domestic military bases, a Commodity code, does not reflect the actual work state and local governments are buying under this classification. Recent solicitations show instead a fragmented portfolio of security, consulting, and administrative services with no coherent relationship to military installation operations.

The recent opportunities tagged with this code span armed and unarmed security guard services (City of Fort Worth, Rockland County, Lubbock, Hudson County), off-duty officer secondary employment management platforms (City of Wichita), threat assessment consulting (Rockland County), cybersecurity managed detection and response (Temple ISD, Detroit), video surveillance system design and assessment (Gwinnett County, Portland Community College, Los Angeles Superior Court, Collier County), and comprehensive operational audits and organizational assessments (San Bernardino County, San Bernardino County security assessment, City of Cibolo). The issuing bodies include cities, counties, school districts, and special-purpose authorities across Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, California, and other states. No single jurisdiction appears more than twice in the recent opportunities. The geographic spread is scattered across multiple states with concentrations in Texas, Florida, and Georgia. Representative recent solicitations include the City of Wichita's RFP 260237 for off-duty officer secondary employment management services (proposals due January 8, 2027), Collin County's IFB 2026-389 for sprinkler head replacement in county jail (bids due November 19, 2026), Gwinnett County's competitive sealed proposals for E911 community engagement software design and implementation (proposals due October 5, 2026), and San Bernardino County's RFP ISD126-ADM-6361 for countywide security assessment and risk analysis across 47 departments with an estimated Year One budget of $1.066750 million (proposals due August 6, 2026). The code shows no coherent market signal and appears to be a systematic misclassification issue in state procurement databases rather than a functional taxonomy category.