SBIR Lineage and the Single-Award Ordering Vehicle
A $350 million Army ceiling shows how SBIR derivation converts capability designation into sole-source ordering capacity.
On 4 August 2026 the Army Field Directorate Office at Fort Eustis, Virginia, awarded BeaverFit North America LLC a firm-fixed-price, single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, W911S0-26-D-A009, valued at $350,000,000, for the design and construction of Holistic Health and Fitness structures, other human performance structures, wide span structures, and human performance equipment and systems as outlined in the Small Business Innovation and Research H2F Readiness Kit. One bid was solicited via the internet with one received; work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of 4 August 2033, according to the Department of War contract announcement for 4 August 2026. That figure stands against two others drawn from the same public record. BeaverFit’s Phase I design study under Army SBIR topic A234-005 was worth $160,687 across a three-month period of performance ending on 2 August 2023. When the Army last bought containerised gymnasia competitively, in 2018, it paid Mobile Fitness Equipment $3,794,432 for 128 units. The structural constraint is that an indefinite-quantity contract binds the Government only to a stated minimum, and the minimum for W911S0-26-D-A009 is not public. What the disclosed record does not answer is by what mechanism a capability designation issued in a three-month feasibility topic becomes a seven-year single-source ordering channel, and under what conditions that mechanism produces industrial capacity rather than contractual access.
The first section reads FAR 16.504 against the award notice to establish what an indefinite-quantity contract legally purchases and what the head-of-agency determination above $150 million requires. The second works the Army’s own accounts of H2F expansion — the Vice Chief of Staff’s February 2025 remarks and the Center for Initial Military Training’s December 2025 statement, which records the decision to resource performance teams across the whole Army and the approval, with the Corps of Engineers, Installation Management Command and the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Energy and Environment, of a 67-facility improvement programme for that fiscal year. The third reconstructs the A234-005 competition from the Army SBIR topic page and the SBIR.gov award records. The fourth applies the SBA Policy Directive and three GAO decisions — PublicRelay, Digital Force and ASRC — to the question of Phase III derivation and awardee identity. The fifth reads the DoD Financial Management Regulation on relocatable buildings and complete-project cost. The sixth reads DFARS 252.227-7018 on the twenty-year protection period and what follows it, alongside the USPTO assignment record and FAR 25.003 on domestic content. The seventh works Companies House filings on ownership and control. This report does not value BeaverFit, does not forecast order volume, and does not characterise the ceiling as revenue.