The Peraton DISA CSC III Contract Award’s Ceiling Trails What the Old Vehicle Obligated

The Peraton DISA CSC III Contract Award Replaces a Decade-Old $902M Vehicle

DISA awarded Peraton the Capacity Services Communications III (CSC III) contract on August 16, 2026, per GovConWire’s report on the award notice. It’s a firm-fixed-price, single-award IDIQ with a $279.9 million ceiling. Washington Technology’s headline cites $290M for the same award. Its body text agrees with GovConWire’s $279.9 million figure, and that’s the figure I use here. The base period runs five years, with up to five one-year options through August 14, 2036.

For a systems integrator or DIB subcontractor with DISA past performance, the Peraton DISA CSC III contract award raises one capture question. Is Peraton’s sub-tier still open? That window narrows once the first task order locks in a team. No source states whether Peraton will subcontract this work. It’s an open question, not a validated opportunity, and the first thing to track once task orders start.

DITCO’s own solicitation described the goal as an on-demand capability. DISA didn’t want a shopping list it has to specify years in advance.

DISA’s draft RFP and trade-press summaries of the solicitation describe the requirement as covering:

• Hardware for DISA and non-DISA sites worldwide
• Operating software and licensing
• Storage infrastructure for data centers and hybrid-cloud environments
• Network management tools and software
• Automation tools and software
• Technical services to keep all of it running

That’s six scope elements under one acquisition vehicle. The task-order structure lets DISA buy capacity in pieces over a decade, not in one lump sum. Whether Peraton delivers all of it directly, or brings in subcontractors, isn’t established in any source I reviewed.

DITCO Picked the Incumbent Over Two Unnamed Competitors

DISA received three proposals for CSC III, per GovConWire’s report on the award notice. DITCO picked Peraton, the incumbent. The award notice discloses the winner, not the competitive field. No public source names the other two offerors. I won’t guess: naming a company as a CSC III bidder without a source to back it would be pattern-matching, not reporting. A GAO protest docket would be the way to learn who else bid, and why they lost. None has been filed as of this writing.

Learn DITCO by name if you sell to DISA. It sits at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, not at DISA’s Fort Meade headquarters. A BD team that tracks DISA opportunities from Fort Meade announcements alone misses a chunk of DISA’s contracting activity. DITCO also runs DISA’s ENCORE III vehicle, and Peraton holds a spot on it. That comes from search-result corroboration, not a primary record checked this pass.

DISA’s on-demand communications work sits inside a broader category of DoD network-infrastructure and IT modernization services. Systems integrators compete for that category across DISA’s contract portfolio, including ENCORE III. For sellers in that category, CSC III is one data point. DISA ran a real competition, and the incumbent held on. Factor that into your next DISA on-demand bid, whether or not you ever touch CSC III itself.

Peraton Has Held This Program Through Three Company Names

Peraton, the DIB prime now holding CSC III, was also CSC II’s incumbent, inherited rather than built from scratch. The program’s corporate lineage:

• 2011: Knight Point Systems wins the original Communications Capacity Services contract.
• 2018: Knight Point wins the CSC II recompete, a 10-year, $902 million-ceiling IDIQ (contract HC1028-18-D-0020, per search-result corroboration, not verified against a primary record this pass).
• 2019: Perspecta acquires Knight Point Systems.
• 2021: Peraton acquires Perspecta, inheriting the CSC program along with it.

No single company won this program twice under its own name. Two acquisitions changed who signed the contract. Whether delivery staff carried across both deals isn’t established in any source I reviewed. DISA kept the same corporate lineage through two ownership changes and one open competition. Losing bidders should raise that lineage in their debrief questions. So should anyone planning to challenge Peraton on the next recompete. Build the capture plan around the program’s history, not just the Peraton name.

CSC III’s Ceiling Comes In Below What CSC II Obligated

DISA never used CSC II’s $902 million ceiling in full. It obligated $573 million in task orders against it, per GovTribe’s FPDS-sourced tracking, as reported by Washington Technology. That’s a 64% utilization rate, reached ahead of the contract’s April 2027 sunset. The figure sits two sources removed from FPDS.gov, not independently pulled from a primary record.

I see two plausible explanations for that drop. No DISA statement backs either one.

DISA may be sizing CSC III’s ceiling to match real consumption under an on-demand model. Its own CSC III solicitation language contrasts on-demand capacity with “a fixed equipment set.” I read that contrast as describing CSC II’s prior structure. No source states CSC II’s structure directly, and CSC II was itself a task-order IDIQ, not a one-time equipment purchase. If the contrast holds, a ceiling built for on-demand draws needs less padding than one built for equipment DISA might never buy. That reads as an efficiency move, not a spending cut. It also rests on an inference I can’t fully source.

Or some of CSC II’s scope may be migrating to a separate vehicle, a commercial cloud contract, for instance. That would leave CSC III covering a narrower slice of what CSC II covered. I found no evidence either way. Open gaps:

• The exact CSC III solicitation number isn’t verified against a primary SAM.gov record in this reporting.
• DISA hasn’t stated a rationale for the ceiling difference in any source reviewed.
• Whether CSC III’s scope is narrower than CSC II’s, or just priced differently, remains open.

Either way, price your next DISA on-demand bid against historical utilization. Don’t price it against the ceiling a prior contract advertised. CSC II shows how far apart the two can sit: more than a third.

Call Peraton’s CSC III Program Team Before the First Task Order Locks the Sub-Tier

Your next move on the Peraton DISA CSC III contract award depends on where you sit.

If you’re a BD lead or capture lead at a small or mid-market systems integrator or DIB sub with DISA past performance, direct outreach beats a wait-and-see posture. Take three steps:

1. Pull your firm’s FPDS/USASpending history for any DISA task order, subcontract, or teaming role in the last five years.
2. Match that history against CSC III’s named scope elements: hardware, operating software, storage, network management, automation, and technical services.
3. Contact Peraton’s CSC III program team now. No public subcontracting solicitation exists yet, so early relationship-building is the available move.

Competing primes bidding future DISA on-demand IDIQs face a different move. Benchmark your next proposal’s ceiling-sizing against a prior vehicle’s obligations, not its advertised ceiling. The CSC II gap documented above is the model to price against.

My primary classification is TEAM, for small and mid systems integrators and DIB subs. Competing primes get a lighter posture: WATCH. Track the ceiling-sizing pattern rather than acting on CSC III itself.

• Your firm’s DISA past performance is recent, within the last three years, not just the last five.
• Your capability statement explicitly covers at least one of CSC III’s six named scope elements.
• You have an FPDS or SAM.gov alert set for CSC III task-order postings under DITCO.

FAQ

Does CSC III’s smaller ceiling tell us anything about other DISA IDIQs?

CSC III is a task-order IDIQ, as CSC II was. What changed is the ceiling set against what DISA obligated under the prior vehicle. CSC III carries $279.9 million against a $573 million run rate. CSC II carried a $902 million ceiling against that same $573 million. One award doesn’t establish a pattern, and I reviewed no other DoD component’s vehicle or solicitation. So primes bidding future DISA IDIQs should benchmark CSC III’s $279.9 million ceiling against CSC II’s $573 million in obligations. Don’t assume a department-wide trend this reporting hasn’t checked.

Is there a real way for a smaller subcontractor to get work under this IDIQ?

Possibly, but it isn’t established. If it happens, it depends on Peraton naming subs in its own task-order proposals, not on a public solicitation. That’s my read of how IDIQs commonly work, not a documented CSC III policy. No source states Peraton’s plan for CSC III.

How is CSC III funded if DISA only guaranteed $100 of it?

The $100 guaranteed minimum is standard IDIQ boilerplate, funded through a Defense Working Capital Fund task order. Everything above that $100 floor, up to the $279.9 million ceiling, depends on DISA issuing and funding task orders one at a time. The ceiling is a maximum, not a promise.

Could a GAO bid protest still change this outcome?

Possibly, though none has been filed as of this writing. GAO’s protest rules (4 C.F.R. § 21.2) generally give a losing offeror 10 days to file, counting from when it knew or should have known its protest ground. A filed protest would name a losing CSC III bidder for the first time.

What would tell us the ceiling drop is a real spending cut, not a resizing?

A DISA statement explaining the ceiling difference would settle it. So would evidence that CSC II-scope work moved to a separate vehicle. A pattern of similarly reduced ceilings across other DISA on-demand recompetes would too. Without those, both readings here stay open.

What’s the next event to watch for?

Watch for the first CSC III task-order announcement. It would show whether Peraton is subcontracting, and to whom. Also watch for a DISA statement on the ceiling reduction, or a bid-protest docket naming the two unnamed offerors.

BD classification: TEAM Confidence: Moderate. Two independently fetched trade-press outlets corroborate the award terms, and their body text agrees on the ceiling, the dates, and the competitive field. The CSC II comparison figures and the CSC III solicitation number are not yet checked against a primary FPDS/SAM.gov record. Evidence that would upgrade this: a public Peraton teaming/subcontracting solicitation for CSC III, or a DISA task-order announcement naming subcontractors. Evidence that would downgrade this: proof that CSC III work is fully organic, with no subcontracting plan. A DISA statement establishing that the ceiling reduction reflects a program wind-down rather than a resizing would do the same.