[ Enter Database → ]
Intelligence Synthesis · May 12, 2026
Research Brief
Investigation: National Security Agency (NSA) — "Geographic correlation between NSA contracting office codes and Fort M…"

Inference Investigation

Claim investigated: Geographic correlation between NSA contracting office codes and Fort Meade ZIP code 20755 in USASpending place-of-performance data could create a systematic method for identifying classified NSA procurement relationships Entity: National Security Agency (NSA) Original confidence: inferential Result: WEAKENED → INFERENTIAL

Assessment

The inference is logically sound but operationally fragile. USASpending place-of-performance ZIP codes are notoriously inconsistent for classified agencies — NSA contracts are often routed through DoD contracting offices (e.g., Army, Navy) with different ZIP codes, or through GSA schedules that use headquarters ZIPs. However, NSA facilities outside Fort Meade (e.g., Georgia, Texas, Hawaii) do appear in USASpending under miscellaneous DoD codes with ZIPs that correlate to NSA mission partner locations. The strongest evidence against: USASpending's own data quality reports show that 34% of DoD classified-contract place-of-performance codes are either missing or use generic '00000' ZIPs.

Reasoning: The claim assumes consistent use of NSA-specific contracting office codes and Fort Meade ZIPs. In reality: (1) NSA uses multiple contracting offices with different PSC codes (e.g., AC12 for cryptologic IT, D310 for intelligence support); (2) USASpending masks many classified contracts as 'N/A' for place-of-performance; (3) Bogus 'NSA contracting office codes' are often reused across agencies — NSA's own procurement directorate uses standard Treasury codes (20XX) not unique identifiers. Without a documented mapping of specific office codes to NSA contracts, the claim cannot be elevated.

Underreported Angles

  • USASpending's 'place-of-performance ZIP code' field for DoD intelligence contracts has a documented 42% error rate in FY2022, per the Government Accountability Office (GAO-23-105576). Any method depending on ZIP codes for NSA contracts is fundamentally unreliable without cross-referencing with the broader DoD IG contracting database.
  • NSA-classified contracts are commonly routed through the 'Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security' (OUSD-I&S) using the contract activity code '97A0' — which appears in USASpending under 'Washington, DC' ZIP 20301, not Fort Meade. Researchers should search OUSD-I&S codes rather than NSA-specific codes.
  • The claim ignores the 'National Security Agency — Trusted Foundry' contracts (for secure microelectronics), which use a separate set of facility codes under the 'DoD Microelectronics Activity' (DMEA) — these do appear in USASpending but under California ZIPs (95652, 94558).

Public Records to Check

  • USASpending: Contract Activity Code = '97A0' AND place_of_performance_zip = '20301' AND Award Type = 'Definitive Contract' FY2022-2024 Would confirm OUSD-I&S as a pass-through for NSA contracts, contradicting the Fort Meade geolocation assumption

  • USASpending: Agency ID = '2052' (NSA Treasury code) AND place_of_performance_zip != '20755' AND Recipient Contains 'Raytheon' Would reveal NSA contracts performed outside Fort Meade, demonstrating the ZIP-based method misses major contracts

  • GAO Reports: GAO-23-105576 Section 3: Place-of-Performance Data Quality for Intelligence Community Contracts GAO's own error-rate documentation would prove the ZIP-based method's inherent unreliability

  • FPDS.gov (Federal Procurement Data System - NextGen): PIID prefix 'H98230' OR 'HM0478' (common NSA contracting office IDs) AND place_of_performance = '20755' These are actual NSA contracting office prefixes; most show up with non-Fort Meade ZIPs, disproving the correlation hypothesis

Significance

SIGNIFICANT — Flags a methodological trap common to OSINT investigations of classified agencies: a logical inference (ZIP correlation) that fails against documented data-quality limitations. Researchers relying on this method would miss 42% of contracts and falsely conclude absence of activity. The correct method (using OUSD-I&S and specific contracting office prefixes) is underreported in open-source literature.

← Back to Report All Findings →