Federal contractor · CHARLOTTE, NC
GOLDEN TECH SYSTEMS INC
GOLDEN TECH SYSTEMS INC received $3.8M in federal contract obligations in FY2026, on 7 awards (−21% vs FY2025). Since FY2020: $22.9M. Its largest customer was Department of Energy ($1.6M).
- Obligations · FY2026
- $3.8M
- New awards
- 7
- Sole-source
- 73%
- Single offer
- 7.0%
- UEI
- SBMCMWAL73G4
- Parent company
- GOLDEN TECH SYSTEMS INC
Spending by fiscal year
Obligations per federal fiscal year (October–September).
- 666.6KFY2020
- 706.8KFY2021
- 2.2MFY2022
- 5.4MFY2023
- 5.4MFY2024
- 4.8MFY2025
- 3.8MFY2026
Top buying agencies
Obligations in FY2026.
- Department of Energy$1.6M43%1 awards
- Department of the Army$1.2M31%2 awards
- Department of the Navy$1M27%3 awards
- Missile Defense Agency$5000.0%1 awards
What was bought · Where the work was performed
Obligations in FY2026.
What was bought
- Professional services$2.4M62%
- IT & telecom$1.4M36%
- Equipment maintenance$60.1K1.6%
- Research & development$5000.0%
Where the work was performed
- District of Columbia, DC$1.6M43%
- Cumberland County, NC$1.1M29%
- Union County, NC$743.4K20%
- Norfolk city, VA$263.3K7.0%
- Newport News city, VA$60.1K1.6%
- Madison County, AL$5000.0%
Integrity signals
Shares of the year's obligations, next to the country's.
- Low competition80%US 39% · $3M
- Sole-source awards73%US 30% · $2.8M
- Single-offer competitions7.0%US 8.8% · $262.8K
- Urgency justifications0.0%US 5.1% · $0
A signal is a reason to look closer, not evidence of wrongdoing: most sole-source awards are lawful and justified.
Largest awards
- Department of the Army· Newport News city, VA· Equipment maintenance· Sep 25, 2025 – Apr 3, 2026· W911S025PA031
- Department of the Army· Cumberland County, NC· IT & telecom· Jul 1, 2025 – May 20, 2026· W9124725CA034
- Department of Energy· District of Columbia, DC· Professional services· Dec 19, 2024 – Aug 28, 2026· 89303025CET000023
- IT SUPPORT$771.9K
- Department of the Navy· Union County, NC· Professional services· Nov 5, 2025 – May 19, 2026· N0024426F3004
- Missile Defense Agency· Madison County, AL· Research & development· Dec 5, 2025 – Jun 4, 2026· HQ085926FF115
- Department of the Navy· Mecklenburg County, NC· Professional services· Mar 6, 2025 – May 3, 2026· N0017825F7398
Subawards
Matched by Unique Entity ID: the first-tier subawards this organization reported as a prime recipient, and those primes reported paying it.
As a prime: who it pays · FY2026
No subawards reported as a prime in FY2026.
As a sub-recipient: who pays it · FY2026
- Sub-contracts: $179.9K (3 subawards)
1 prime
- ROCKVILLE, MD · 3 subawards
By fiscal year
- FY2024: $0 paid out · $2.8M received
- FY2025: $0 paid out · $317.3K received
- FY2026: $0 paid out · $179.9K received
Primes report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more themselves, and many go unreported (GAO-24-106214). Reporting moved from FSRS to SAM.gov in March 2025 and fewer sub-contracts have been reported since. Amounts are what primes reported; they are never added to prime award totals.
Source: Subawards (first-tier sub-contracts and sub-grants reported under FFATA) (U.S. Department of the Treasury, USAspending.gov (reports filed in SAM.gov, formerly FSRS)), data current to Oct 8, 2026, loaded Oct 8, 2026 · Subawards loaded from FY2021.
Teaming partners
Companies this company reported paying, primes that reported paying it, from FFATA subaward reports.
Companies it pays
No subawards reported to other companies.
Primes that pay it
2 companies · $3.3M reported
- TULSA, OK · 2 subawards · Computer systems design and related services
- YORK, PA · 9 subawards · Architectural, engineering, and related services
Primes report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more themselves, and many go unreported (GAO-24-106214). Reporting moved from FSRS to SAM.gov in March 2025 and fewer sub-contracts have been reported since. Amounts are what primes reported; they are never added to prime award totals.
Source: Subawards (first-tier sub-contracts and sub-grants reported under FFATA) (U.S. Department of the Treasury, USAspending.gov (reports filed in SAM.gov, formerly FSRS)), data current to Oct 8, 2026, loaded Oct 8, 2026 · Subawards loaded from 2021.
Competitors
Companies that win from the same buyers in the same markets: obligations by agency and industry compared over the last three fiscal years.
Compared on 9 markets (agency × industry), FY2024–FY2026.
- MICHAEL BAKER-STANLEY JOINT VENTURE$4.1M−80% in FY2026MOON TOWNSHIP, PA · 26% of this company's obligations are in markets they both serveArmy · Architectural, engineering, and related servicesNavy · Architectural, engineering, and related services
- ATX CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC$4.1M+686% in FY2026AUSTIN, TX · 26% of this company's obligations are in markets they both serveNavy · Computer systems design and related servicesArmy · Computer systems design and related services
- ROBERT AND COMPANY$5M−89% in FY2026ATLANTA, GA · 27% of this company's obligations are in markets they both serveArmy · Architectural, engineering, and related servicesNavy · Architectural, engineering, and related services
Showing the top 3 of 25 competitors. Open the profile for the full list.
Who sells to the same buyers in the same markets, not who wins against whom on a given contract. Prime contract obligations by the agency and NAICS code of each award; subawards are never added. A company is a family of legal entities, joined by parent UEI or, in part, by an AI reading of names.
Source: Federal contract transactions (Federal Procurement Data System) (U.S. Department of the Treasury, USAspending.gov), data current to Oct 7, 2026, loaded Oct 7, 2026 · FY2024–FY2026.
Source: Federal contract transactions (Federal Procurement Data System) (U.S. Department of the Treasury, USAspending.gov), data current to Oct 7, 2026, loaded Oct 7, 2026.