Top 100 Contractors in PSC AJ11: General Science and Technology R&D Services; General Science and Technology; Basic Research, FY2021
Parent companies by net contract obligations Oct 1, 2020 – Sep 30, 2021 Code page on GovTribe
The top 10 won 31% of FY2021 PSC AJ11 contract dollars
Ranking facts
- Contract obligations
- $849,706,988 Net of deobligations, by contracts coded PSC AJ11
- Contractors
- 736 Parent companies with an obligation
- Largest contractor
- The Mitre Corporation $42.2 million, 5.0% of obligations
- Data as of
Contract actions from FPDS (SAM.gov). How the rankings work · Download all 100 rows as CSV
Full ranking
| Rank | Contractor | Net obligations | Share | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $42,197,587 | |||
| 2 | $39,883,607 | |||
| 3 |
General Atomic Technologies Corporation
|
$38,134,579 | ||
| 4 | $37,559,088 | |||
| 5 | $28,378,229 | |||
| 6 | $20,605,533 | |||
| 7 | $20,537,680 | |||
| 8 | $14,241,388 | |||
| 9 | $13,975,705 | |||
| 10 | $10,552,674 | |||
| 11 |
Assurance Technology Corp
Top agencies
|
$10,412,571 | ||
| 12 | $10,257,413 | |||
| 13 | $9,464,208 | |||
| 14 | $9,153,280 | |||
| 15 | $8,429,132 | |||
| 16 | $8,304,815 | |||
| 17 | $8,000,000 | |||
| 18 | $7,999,950 | |||
| 19 | $7,842,163 | |||
| 20 |
Technology Service Corp
Top agencies
|
$7,300,399 | ||
| 21 | $7,256,223 | |||
| 22 | $6,974,164 | |||
| 23 | $6,934,000 | |||
| 24 |
Analytic Services Inc.
Top agencies
|
$6,693,263 | ||
| 25 |
IST Research, LLC
Top agencies
|
$6,639,951 | ||
| 26 | $6,450,431 | |||
| 27 | $5,909,340 | |||
| 28 |
Board of Governers State University System of Florida
Top agencies
|
$5,815,040 | ||
| 29 | $5,814,107 | |||
| 30 | $5,651,338 | |||
| 31 | $5,626,202 | |||
| 32 | $5,586,027 | |||
| 33 | $5,368,766 | |||
| 34 | $5,345,263 | |||
| 35 | $5,249,734 | |||
| 36 | $5,025,970 | |||
| 37 | $5,025,234 | |||
| 38 | $4,893,848 | |||
| 39 | $4,678,394 | |||
| 40 | $4,673,402 | |||
| 41 | $4,549,208 | |||
| 42 |
Lumetrics, Inc.
Top agencies
|
$4,503,000 | ||
| 43 | $4,330,762 | |||
| 44 | $4,119,709 | |||
| 45 | $4,067,734 | |||
| 46 | $4,048,428 | |||
| 47 |
The University of Alabama System
|
$3,986,453 | ||
| 48 | $3,880,323 | |||
| 49 | $3,875,336 | |||
| 50 | $3,604,195 | |||
| 51 | $3,383,306 | |||
| 52 | $3,355,307 | |||
| 53 | $3,183,675 | |||
| 54 | $3,164,729 | |||
| 55 |
Goldbelt Frontier, LLC
Top agencies
|
$3,075,929 | ||
| 56 | $3,044,636 | |||
| 57 |
Aviture Inc.
Top agencies
|
$2,998,599 | ||
| 58 | $2,905,039 | |||
| 59 | $2,840,818 | |||
| 60 | $2,788,910 | |||
| 61 | $2,788,412 | |||
| 62 |
Regents of the University of Minnesota
Top agencies
|
$2,787,126 | ||
| 63 |
University of Montana System
Top agencies
|
$2,666,597 | ||
| 64 | $2,651,466 | |||
| 65 | $2,644,021 | |||
| 66 | $2,622,402 | |||
| 67 |
Block Mems LLC
Top agencies
|
$2,622,082 | ||
| 68 | $2,617,900 | |||
| 69 | $2,588,759 | |||
| 70 | $2,515,704 | |||
| 71 | $2,504,367 | |||
| 72 | $2,461,829 | |||
| 73 | $2,402,158 | |||
| 74 | $2,355,177 | |||
| 75 | $2,276,302 | |||
| 76 | $2,258,149 | |||
| 77 |
Purvis Systems Inc.
Top agencies
|
$2,256,455 | ||
| 78 | $2,246,873 | |||
| 79 | $2,227,847 | |||
| 80 |
Edmond Scientific Company
Top agencies
|
$2,220,805 | ||
| 81 | $2,216,127 | |||
| 82 |
The University of Tulsa
Top agencies
|
$2,200,000 | ||
| 83 | $2,199,897 | |||
| 84 | $2,197,000 | |||
| 85 | $2,167,090 | |||
| 86 | $2,147,479 | |||
| 87 | $2,145,405 | |||
| 88 | $2,128,500 | |||
| 89 |
Creare LLC
Top agencies
|
$2,101,592 | ||
| 90 | $2,066,004 | |||
| 91 | $2,040,878 | |||
| 92 | $1,967,979 | |||
| 93 | $1,942,969 | |||
| 94 | $1,942,222 | |||
| 95 | $1,880,146 | |||
| 96 |
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
|
$1,847,031 | ||
| 97 |
Psiber Data Systems Inc.
Top agencies
|
$1,811,425 | ||
| 98 | $1,779,433 | |||
| 99 |
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
|
$1,776,145 | ||
| 100 | $1,767,084 |
Show 75 more
100 of 736 contractors listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
How this ranking works
- Source: every contract action FPDS records (as published on SAM.gov) in the period, as GovTribe received it.
- Amounts are net obligations: what was obligated, less what was deobligated. Shares are of $852 million obligated before deobligations, so they never pass 100%.
- Parent companies: each action counts under the ultimate parent its award record names, or under the awardee when it names none, so no dollar counts twice. Parents of the same name (Inc., LLC and the like aside) count as one company, since FPDS records a company's parent under more than one UEI over time. GovTribe corrects a few parents and names by hand; see the corrections.
- Fiscal year 2021 ran Oct 1, 2020 – Sep 30, 2021. The Department of Defense reports its contract actions to FPDS about 90 days late, so a fiscal year is ranked once they're in, in February, and the list doesn't change after.
- Rank changes compare with FY2020. "New" marks a company outside that period's top 500, and "Returned" one of those that was on an earlier fiscal year's list.
- Rank lines show each company's rank on every fiscal year's list since FY2021, #1 at the top, on a scale that gives the top of the list more room. A dashed stretch spans years it wasn't on the list. The step from FY2020 takes the color of the rank change beside it.
- Placeholder recipients FPDS uses when it names no company ("Miscellaneous Foreign Contractors" and the like) aren't ranked.
Quick answers
Who were the top 10 PSC AJ11 contractors in FY2021?
1. The Mitre Corporation ($42.2M), 2. Georgia TECH Research Corp ($39.9M), 3. General Atomic Technologies Corporation ($38.1M), 4. State of California Controllers Office ($37.6M), 5. The Regents of the University of Colorado ($28.4M), 6. Leidos Holdings, Inc. ($20.6M), 7. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation ($20.5M), 8. Teamstaff Inc. ($14.2M), 9. University of Alaska System ($14M), 10. Clear Creek Applied Technologies Inc. ($10.6M).
On GovTribe
Research every contractor on this list
- Every contract, task order and IDV they hold
- Their subsidiaries, teammates and competitors
- Open opportunities they're positioned for
- Alerts when they win new work