Top 100 Contractors in PSC S114: Water Services, FY2022
Parent companies by net contract obligations Oct 1, 2021 – Sep 30, 2022 Code page on GovTribe
The top 10 won 64% of FY2022 PSC S114 contract dollars
Ranking facts
- Contract obligations
- $566,513,702 Net of deobligations, by contracts coded PSC S114
- Contractors
- 324 Parent companies with an obligation
- Largest contractor
- American Water Works Company Inc. $185 million, 31.5% 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 | $184,973,316 | |||
| 2 | $74,638,675 | |||
| 3 | $18,395,293 | |||
| 4 | $17,635,056 | |||
| 5 | $16,471,196 | |||
| 6 | $14,358,578 | |||
| 7 | $13,797,264 | |||
| 8 | $13,733,474 | |||
| 9 |
Base Utilities Inc.
Top agencies
|
$11,865,123 | ||
| 10 | $11,179,046 | |||
| 11 |
Florida Governmental Utility Authority
Top agencies
|
$9,379,470 | ||
| 12 | $7,826,440 | |||
| 13 | $7,774,696 | |||
| 14 | $7,025,964 | |||
| 15 |
Tama City Hall
Top agencies
|
$6,370,942 | ||
| 16 |
City of Aberdeen
Top agencies
|
$5,525,796 | ||
| 17 |
Veolia Water North America-West LLC
Top agencies
|
$5,457,545 | ||
| 18 | $5,416,069 | |||
| 19 | $5,022,216 | |||
| 20 | $4,900,784 | |||
| 21 | $4,271,985 | |||
| 22 | $3,928,540 | |||
| 23 | $3,564,117 | |||
| 24 | $3,513,897 | |||
| 25 | $3,058,014 | |||
| 26 |
Fayetteville City of
Top agencies
|
$2,753,203 | ||
| 27 |
City of Victorville
Top agencies
|
$2,684,829 | ||
| 28 |
City of Atlanta
Top agencies
|
$2,610,004 | ||
| 29 |
City of Milan
Top agencies
|
$2,453,798 | ||
| 30 |
Jungbu Water Supply Office
Top agencies
|
$2,428,787 | ||
| 31 |
City of Wildwood City Hall
Top agencies
|
$2,394,127 | ||
| 32 |
Beckley Sanitary Board
Top agencies
|
$2,317,588 | ||
| 33 |
City of Florence
Top agencies
|
$2,240,820 | ||
| 34 | $2,214,648 | |||
| 35 | $2,161,579 | |||
| 36 | $2,158,125 | |||
| 37 | $2,050,000 | |||
| 38 |
City of Hopewell
Top agencies
|
$2,031,031 | ||
| 39 | $2,029,625 | |||
| 40 | $1,978,436 | |||
| 41 |
City of Beaumont
Top agencies
|
$1,920,876 | ||
| 42 |
Town of Pollock
Top agencies
|
$1,904,315 | ||
| 43 | $1,851,000 | |||
| 44 | $1,784,675 | |||
| 45 |
Kyotango City
Top agencies
|
$1,683,687 | ||
| 46 | $1,657,429 | |||
| 47 |
City of Aliceville
Top agencies
|
$1,559,979 | ||
| 48 | $1,459,253 | |||
| 49 | $1,430,195 | |||
| 50 | $1,346,311 | |||
| 51 |
Texas Water Utilities, L.P.
Top agencies
|
$1,343,602 | ||
| 52 |
Sheridan City of
Top agencies
|
$1,320,314 | ||
| 53 | $1,277,128 | |||
| 54 | $1,193,552 | |||
| 55 | $1,187,112 | |||
| 56 | $1,156,510 | |||
| 57 | $1,125,525 | |||
| 58 |
City of Tucson
Top agencies
|
$1,116,970 | ||
| 59 | $1,077,350 | |||
| 60 | $1,038,583 | |||
| 61 |
City of Welch
Top agencies
|
$1,034,922 | ||
| 62 | $1,003,044 | |||
| 63 | $1,001,233 | |||
| 64 |
City of Danbury CT
Top agencies
|
$946,464 | ||
| 65 | $941,622 | |||
| 66 |
City of El Reno
Top agencies
|
$890,935 | ||
| 67 |
City of Jesup
Top agencies
|
$871,167 | ||
| 68 | $841,946 | |||
| 69 |
City of Greenville
Top agencies
|
$824,584 | ||
| 70 |
Williamsburg County
Top agencies
|
$766,426 | ||
| 71 |
City of Lawton
Top agencies
|
$763,162 | ||
| 72 | $747,940 | |||
| 73 |
City of Prestonsburg
Top agencies
|
$730,070 | ||
| 74 |
City of Houston
Top agencies
|
$723,921 | ||
| 75 | $719,869 | |||
| 76 | $719,508 | |||
| 77 |
City of Manchester
Top agencies
|
$702,388 | ||
| 78 | $686,800 | |||
| 79 | $638,079 | |||
| 80 |
Water Authority Busan Metropolitan City Korea
|
$599,135 | ||
| 81 |
Texarkana Water Utilities
Top agencies
|
$595,007 | ||
| 82 | $594,659 | |||
| 83 |
City of Bennettsville
Top agencies
|
$576,070 | ||
| 84 |
City of Leavenworth
Top agencies
|
$573,725 | ||
| 85 |
City of Oakdale
Top agencies
|
$562,648 | ||
| 86 |
Woodway Water Authority
Top agencies
|
$557,507 | ||
| 87 | $551,370 | |||
| 88 |
City of Portland
Top agencies
|
$545,957 | ||
| 89 |
Aqua Water Supply Corp
Top agencies
|
$517,525 | ||
| 90 | $515,135 | |||
| 91 | $497,959 | |||
| 92 | $495,879 | |||
| 93 |
City of San Diego
Top agencies
|
$488,556 | ||
| 94 | $479,490 | |||
| 95 | $448,511 | |||
| 96 |
City of Watervliet
Top agencies
|
$442,000 | ||
| 97 |
City of Del RIO
Top agencies
|
$429,969 | ||
| 98 |
City of Big Spring
Top agencies
|
$416,479 | ||
| 99 |
City of Dallas
Top agencies
|
$400,906 | ||
| 100 | $397,656 |
Show 75 more
100 of 324 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 $587 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 2022 ran Oct 1, 2021 – Sep 30, 2022. 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 FY2021. "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 FY2021 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 S114 contractors in FY2022?
1. American Water Works Company Inc. ($185M), 2. Old North Utility Services Inc. ($74.6M), 3. Fort Riley Utility Services, Inc. ($18.4M), 4. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. ($17.6M), 5. Emerald Coast Utility Services Inc. ($16.5M), 6. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ($14.4M), 7. Augusta-Richmond County Government ($13.8M), 8. Foreign Utility Consolidated Reporting ($13.7M), 9. Base Utilities Inc. ($11.9M), 10. Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust ($11.2M).
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